The Middle Stone Age archaeology of the Lower

Transcription

Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 448–485
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Human Evolution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol
The Middle Stone Age archaeology of the Lower Omo Valley Kibish
Formation: Excavations, lithic assemblages, and inferred
patterns of early Homo sapiens behavior
John J. Shea
Anthropology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 April 2007
Accepted 15 May 2008
This paper describes the excavation, stratigraphy, and lithic assemblages of Middle Stone Age sites from
the Omo Kibish Formation (Lower Omo Valley, southwestern Ethiopia). Three sites were excavated, two
in Kibish Member I (KHS and AHS) and one at the base of Member III (BNS). The assemblages are
dominated by relatively high-quality raw materials procured as pebbles from local gravels. The principal
modes of core preparation are radial/centripetal Levallois and discoidal. Retouched tools are rare. Foliate
bifaces are present, as are larger tools, such as handaxes, picks, and lanceolates, but these are more
common among surface finds than among excavated assemblages. Middle Stone Age assemblages shed
light on the adaptations of the earliest-known Homo sapiens populations in Africa.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Africa
Archaeology
Behavior
Early Homo sapiens
Ethiopia
Lithic analysis
Middle Stone Age
Omo Kibish
Introduction
Archaeological research on modern human origins has long
focused on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition in western
Eurasia. Recently, however, it has increasingly focused on the African Middle Stone Age (MSA). The earliest skeletally modernlooking humans occur in African MSA contexts (Stringer, 2002).
There is also evidence that derived behavioral features of the Eurasian Middle–Upper Paleolithic ‘‘human revolution’’ have a much
greater antiquity in Africa (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). Unfortunately, many key African early
Homo sapiens fossils lack reliable dates and good information about
their archaeological associations. Until recently, the early H. sapiens
fossils from the Kibish Formation of the Lower Omo River Valley,
Ethiopia, were one such poorly dated and archaeologically undocumented set of remains. New 40Ar/39Ar dates on feldspar crystals within pumice clasts in the Kibish Formation (McDougall et al.,
2005) have changed this picture dramatically. The age estimate of
195 5 ka for Kibish Member I makes the Omo I and II fossils the
earliest H. sapiens known to science. The Omo Kibish fossils’
E-mail address: [email protected]
0047-2484/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.05.014
archaeological associations are clearly germane to recent debate
about the mode and tempo of later Pleistocene human evolution.
In announcing their discovery of the Omo Kibish hominins,
Leakey et al. (1969: 1132) reported that Omo I was associated with
‘‘flake debris.’’ Butzer et al. (1969: 19–20) later elaborated,
describing the fossils’ archaeological associations thusly: ‘‘Some 69
stone artifacts were also recovered, 9% of them water-worn. They
are undiagnostic, except for 5 utilized or retouched Levallois
flakes.’’ For more than thirty years nothing more was added to the
archaeological record of the Omo Kibish humans.
This paper reports the results of renewed archaeological
research in the Omo Kibish Formation between 2001 and 2003. It
focuses on the excavation and lithic assemblages recovered from
three main archaeological sites: KHS, AHS, and BNS (Fig. 1; Table 1).
A description of the lithic analysis framework used in this study is
presented in the Appendix. A separate paper in this volume by Sisk
and Shea (2008) presents information about intrasite spatial
patterning of lithic artifacts and refitting studies. Faunal remains
associated with these lithic assemblages are reported separately in
this volume by Assefa et al. (2008).
The MSA archaeology of the Omo Kibish Formation provides
a glimpse of human behavior near the origin of our species. Comparison of the Kibish assemblages with other MSA assemblages
suggests that the Kibish humans were part of a regional hominin
J.J. Shea / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 448–485
449
0824747/N 0597940). The site is a low promontory of Member I
sediments about 20 m long and 9 m wide jutting west from a hill
capped by about 10 m of Member II sediments (Figs. 2 and 3). Although more than thirty years had passed since the Leakey excavations, it was still possible to detect the faint outlines of their
trench on the south side of the promontory. However, because
there was no sign of Leakey’s site datum, we established our own
datum at the westernmost edge of the promontory.
Excavation of KHS
Fig. 1. Map Showing the Kibish MSA sites in relation to local landscape features.
population practicing broadly similar adaptations in eastern Africa
between 250 ka and 50 ka.
Kamoya’s hominid site (KHS)
Kyamoya Kimeu discovered KHS, the findspot of the Omo I fossil,
during the 1967 Kenyan expedition to the Lower Omo Valley. The
KHS locality is situated at 432 m above sea level on the northern
side of the Omo River at N 05 24.1520 , E 35 55.8120 (UTM 36 N E
Some fossils and artifacts were collected from the surface of KHS
during 2001, but systematic surface collection and excavation began in 2002. Except for the clearing of sterile overburden in 2003,
all sediments were excavated with trowels and screened through
a 50-mm wire-cloth mesh. Workers from the nearby Mursi community assisted in clearing sediments and screening. The focus of
our research was the ‘‘minor disconformity’’ that previous excavations reported as the source of the Omo I fossil and its associated
archaeological assemblage (Leakey et al., 1969).
Our first step in 2002 was systematic surface cleaning in the
declivity immediately south of the Leakey trench. This effort
exposed a few nonhuman vertebrate fossils and a dense concentration of stone tools in and around square E7/S5, about 2 m below
datum and roughly 0.5–0.7 m below Levels 2–3. The loose sand in
which these artifacts were found suggested that they had been
eroded into their present position during the last thirty years. Once
we located the in situ deposits of Levels 2–3, our excavation proceeded northwards along a broad front, culminating (in 2003) with
a narrow trench across the promontory. This excavation yielded
small numbers of bone fragments and stone tools. By the end of
2003, excavations at KHS had exposed a total of 23 m2 of KHS Levels
2–3. During those times when the excavation at KHS was stopped
(the crew having been relocated to other sites), J. Trapani led
a group of Mursi workers in systematically scraping and sifting the
sediments in the gully to the south of KHS. This operation recovered
several fragmentary hominin fossils, some nonhuman vertebrate
fossils, and stone artifacts, all eroded downslope from KHS. The
gullies to the east and north of the site were also surface-collected,
mainly by J. Shea, Z. Assefa, and J. Fleagle.
Kamoya’s Hominid Site encapsulates the uppermost 5 m of
Kibish Member I (i.e., Leakey’s beds g–h). These strata, previously
described by Leakey et al., (1969), are correlated with our archaeological stratigraphy in Table 2. On the basis of McDougall et al.’s
(2005) chronology for the Omo Kibish Formation, we estimate the
date of the deposition of KHS Levels 2–3 to be 195 5 ka.
The principal archaeological stratum at KHS is Level 3 (Fig. 4).
Located roughly 1.5 m below datum, it overlies an erosional
disconformity at the top of Level 4. Level 3 is typically no more than
Table 1
Overview of major sites in the Omo Kibish Formation
Site
KHS
PHS
AHS
BNS
Year discovered
Location and elevation (amsl)
1967
N 05 24.20
E 35 55.80
þ432 m
I
Omo I
23
2–6 cm
1967
N 05 25.50
E 35 55.50
þ435 m
I
Omo II
None, surface prospection only
None
2002
N 05 24.50
E 35 54.00
þ424 m
Top of II/base of III
None
46
2–10 cm
Small lithic assemblage
associated with several
vertebrate fossils (a bird,
a bovid)
None. Some isolated cores and
flakes found on same hillside,
but several meters lower than
the reported findspot of Omo II
2003
N 05 26.00
E 35 55.20
þ412 m
I
Omo IV
17
Levels 1–5 ¼ 100 cm
Levels 6–8 ¼ 20 cm
Multicomponent site (10 levels)
containing rich lithic and faunal
assemblages; Omo 4 is from
Level 6
Kibish Member
Hominin fossils
Area excavated (m2)
Depth of cultural levels
Archaeology
Single-level site with rich lithic
assemblage, sparse faunal
remains
450
Fig. 2. KHS (view north) during 2003 excavations (J. Shea photo).
2–6 cm thick in any particular square. Level 3 is relatively soft, with
a clayey consistency in its easternmost exposures. It is cemented by
carbonate concretions in the western part of the site (i.e., west of
E5), where it thins and eventually disappears. Level 3 is overlain by
Level 2, a tan silty layer of variable thickness (but never more than
1–2 cm). Most of the artifacts and fossils (all nonhuman) recovered
in situ were either embedded in Level 3 or at the contact of Levels 2
and 3. Further description of the KHS assemblage combines Levels 2
and 3. The total exposure of KHS Levels 2–3 was coterminous,
amounting to approximately 23 m2. A few nonhuman vertebrate
fossils, including several articulated bones of a large bird, were
recovered from baulk cleaning and test trenching in Level 4, but
these were confined to the immediate surface of this level.
KHS lithic assemblage
A summary of the KHS lithic assemblage in terms of recovery
zones, artifact types, and lithic raw materials is presented in Table 3.
Nearly half of the KHS assemblage (48%) derives from the South
Gully screening operation. A further substantial portion of the
assemblage (26%) was recovered from controlled excavation of
Levels 2–3. All of these artifacts derive from KHS Levels 2–3, and the
remainder of this analysis will treat them, along with finds from the
surface of KHS, as well as those from the East, South, and North
gullies, together as components of the same ‘‘KHS’’ assemblage. In
July 2005, the author traveled to National Museums of Kenya in
order to examine artifacts from The excavation by Leakey and
colleagues in 1967 at KHS (Leakey et al., 1969). These artifacts were
measured, drawn, and are also included as part of the KHS
assemblage.
The lithic raw materials of the KHS assemblage are predominantly fine-grained cryptocrystalline silicate rocks, jasper,
chalcedony, and chert. Coarser-grained and less-siliceous rocks are
less common. One of the less common lithic materials found at KHS
merits special comment. Square S3/E6 preserved 26 fragments of
a white-green highly siliceous rock in a small (5-cm-wide) cluster.
Frank Brown (pers. comm.) later identified this material as opal
silica. These fragments appear to reflect the in situ decomposition
of an opal-silica artifact. Although it is bright and visually striking,
this material has poor conchoidal fracture properties. The nearest
source of such opal silica is precipitate deposits lining the hot
springs 20 km north of our research area in the Omo National Park.
This opal silica is unique among the lithic materials in the Kibish
MSA assemblages in that we never encountered it in our surveys of
Kibish Member I gravel deposits.
Technologically, the KHS assemblage is dominated by debris
(44%) and flakes and flake fragments (43%). While there are a few
tools with weathered edges and surfaces suggesting fluvial
transport, the surfaces and edges of nearly all of the flakes from
the KHS excavation are in fresh condition, as are a remarkably
large proportion of the gully-collection artifacts. These observations suggest that KHS experienced minimal fluvial disturbance
between the deposition of Level 3 and its burial under Level 2.
Retouched tools are somewhat more abundant in the Kenya 1967
assemblage than in the 2002 collections, but unretouched flakes
are present as well, suggesting that this difference is not the
North Gully
N
-3m
-2
-1
+1
E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 18
South
Gully
+2
6
5
4
3
2
N1
S1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2m
= Levels 2/3 in situ
-4
Fig. 3. Plan of KHS excavations.
0
East
Gully
451
Table 2
KHS stratigraphy
Level
Matrix and approximate elevation below datum in SW
corner of E11/N1.
Lithics
Fossils
1
Pale-brown silty-clay loam with abundant limonitic staining
(0.5–1.70 m). Equivalent to Leakey et al.’s (1969: 1134)
level (e). Total depth of Level 1 is approximately 1.5 m.
Pale-gray tan silt (1.70–1.72 m).
Dark-brown clayey loam overlying an erosional
(1.72–1.75 m)
Pale-brown silty-clay loam with small ferruginous
concretions (1.75–1.80þ m). Equivalent to Leakey et al.’s
(1969: 1134) level (d). Total depth of Level 4 is
approximately 0.8 m.
Absent
Absent
Absent? (Base of unit only)
Present
Absent? (Base of unit only)
Present
Absent
Present on surface only
2
3
4
tools from KHS are not substantially modified or ‘‘curated’’ by
resharpening.
There are two hammerstones in the KHS assemblage. One is
a small use-pitted basalt cobble comprising two conjoining fragments that apparently split along a natural flaw (see Fig. 7i). The
other is a large, circular basalt cobble with pitting and a set of large
fractures (see Fig. 7h). This second hammerstone was found on the
surface in the gully north of the site and is much larger than any of
the other components of the KHS assemblage.
Postexcavation analysis of the KHS assemblage revealed 27
refitting ‘‘constellations’’ (sets of artifacts that refit to one another).
These are described and illustrated in detail in Sisk and Shea
(2008). Of these constellations, fifteen are ‘‘refits,’’ or tools that
were separated by conchoidal fracture. The remainder are conjoins,
mostly fragments of the same flake. Among the refits, core preparation, exploitation, and rejuvenation/termination are about evenly
represented. Only two constellations involve more than one of
these technical operations. Scar-pattern variation on the refitting
constellations from KHS suggest that initial pebble and cobble
reduction involved unilinear flake removals that gradually became
more radially and centripetally directed as core size diminished.
Most refitting sets of flakes were either fragments of the same flake
or flakes removed consecutively that conjoined along their lateral
margins.
result of a systematic collection bias. Richard Leakey and Paul
Abell report having piece-plotted artifacts recovered by their excavations. Sadly, and despite a concerted search, the records of
this excavation cannot be located.
There are 24 cores in the KHS assemblage (Fig. 5). Most are made
of high-quality rocks, jasper, chalcedony, and chert. Fully half of the
cores in the KHS assemblage are Levallois cores. Of the latter, most
are radially/centripetally prepared and less than 3 cm long. Many of
the cores were abandoned after the removal of either a single
central flake or an overshot/‘‘plunging’’ flake. Table 4 presents the
descriptive statistics for the measurements of the KHS core sample.
There are 294 debitage products in the KHS assemblage, of
which nearly half are debris (Fig. 6). As with the cores, jasper,
chalcedony, and chert predominate among the raw materials. The
predominance of initial and residual cortical flakes among the
whole flakes suggests that the primary reduction of raw material
cobbles and pebbles played a significant role in the formation of the
KHS assemblage. The noncortical component of the whole flakes
features Levallois flakes, Levallois blades, core-trimming elements
(mostly overshot Levallois flakes), and pseudo-Levallois points.
Only 26 of the whole flakes from KHS are sufficiently large and
complete to allow the full suite of technological measurements to
be made on them (see also Table 4). (Whole flakes that were not
measured possessed either cortical or crushed striking platforms
whose dimensions could not be measured accurately.)
There are 20 retouched artifacts in KHS (Fig. 7). The largest of
these is an ovate handaxe (KHS #57) collected a few meters
downslope of the KHS Levels 2–3 outcrop in the South Gully. The
remainder consists of retouched flakes. Among these, sidescrapers
and backed knives are the most common. ‘‘Backing’’ among the KHS
retouched tools is minimally invasive and does not appear to have
altered the flake’s original shape. Coarse-grained raw materials
(rhyolite and basalt) are somewhat more common among the
retouched tools than the rest of the assemblage, but small sample
sizes preclude inferring much from this difference. The mean values
for key technological variables on these retouched flakes (see also
Table 4) do not differ significantly from those of the whole flakes in
the KHS assemblage. This finding suggests that the retouched flake
depth bd (meters)
8
7
6
5
4
3
-1.0
2
-2.0
4
-3.0
KHS faunal evidence
Nonhuman vertebrate faunal remains from KHS included those
of Kobus ellipsiprymnus, Phacochoerus, Hippopotamus, and an
unidentified suid. These remains are described in this volume by
Assefa et al. (2008).
Interpretation of KHS
The KHS archaeological occurrence is, in essence, a small patch
of lithic artifacts associated with a fragmentary human skeleton.
The nature of this association has recently been called into question,
largely on the basis of perceived morphological differences between
South
North
2
1
1
2
1
3
minor disconformity
-4.0
Fig. 4. Profile of KHS stratigraphy along E10/N6–S8.
3
4
5
6
452
Table 3
Summary of KHS assemblages: Artifacts by proveniences and rock types
Tool group
Tool type
n (subtotal %)
% without debris
KHS level 2/3
KHS surface
Unifacial chopper
Bifacial chopper
Core scraper
Polyhedron
Asymmetrical discoid
Levallois core
Other core type
Core fragment
Core subtotal
1
2
1
1
1
10
2
6
24 (7.0)
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.1
1.0
3.1
12.3
Cobble fragment
Initial cortical flake
Residual cortical flake
Levallois flake
Levallois blade
Pseudo-Levallois point
Noncortical flake
Core-trimming element
Flake fragment, proximal
Flake fragment, other
Blocky fragment
Flake subtotal
3
19
25
10
2
5
13
6
22
40
1
146 (42.6)
1.5
9.7
12.8
5.1
1.0
2.6
6.7
3.1
11.3
20.5
0.5
74.9
23
1
Debris and subtotal
148 (43.1)
75.9
58
2
1
4
1
1
3
1
4
4
1
20 (5.8)
0.5
2.1
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
2.1
2.1
0.5
10.3
2 (0.6)
1.0
E Gully
N Gully
S Gully
NM Kenya
Jasper
Chalcedony
Chert
IOCCS
Shale
Rhyolite
Basalt
Ind. volc.
Core
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
8
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
10
2
4
5
1
3
10
1
2
4
3
1
2
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
Debitage
3
2
5
8
5
2
3
1
16
12
6
2
2
4
4
12
19
7
6
78
2
5
1
31
68
20
60
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
3
3
5
4
5
1
1
8
6
3
1
1
5
6
4
1
2
2
3
5
8
1
1
2
7
7
2
1
5
10
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
36
27
37
5
8
4
1
8
1
20
19
55
1
3
2
8
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
9
Debris
Retouched tool
Point/triangular flake
Sidescraper
Convergent scraper
Awl
Backed knife
Notch
Denticulate
Other retouched flake
Handaxe
Retouched tool subtotal
Hammerstone
Hammerstone
and subtotal
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
10
5
162
48
2
1
3
1
3
4
13
2
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
1
3
1
1
32
12
13
7
Total
n
% without debris
343 (100.0)
100.0
90
16
3
1
Note: IOCCS ¼ indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline silicate, Ind. volc. ¼ indeterminate volcanic.
7
4
68
25
108
25
50
16
104
25
4
2
16
7
11
5
2
2
1
453
Fig. 5. Cores from KHS: (a–c) Levallois cores, (d, e) asymmetrical discoids, (f) core remnant of overshot flake, (g) core-on-flake fragment. (Note: g is from the Omo 1967 Collections
in the National Museums of Kenya.)
Table 4
Descriptive statistics for measurements (in mm) of cores from KHS
Mean
Median
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Count
Length
Width
Thickness
Volume (cm3)
45
33
30
23
120
12
37
27
24
22
104
12
18
12
15
7
56
12
86
10
202
5
699
12
the Omo I and Omo II crania. ‘‘A stark morphological contrast between Omo-Kibish 1 and Omo-Kibish 2 may mean that one (or
both) were intrusive into the stratigraphic unit they derive from,
and Omo 1 (more modern) may be much more recent’’ (Klein, 1999:
397). Although our excavation did not recover any hominin remains
in situ at KHS, all of the stone tools and nonhuman fossils we recovered were either from Levels 2–3 or (in the case of the human
fossils we did recover) found in near-surface contexts at lower elevations than Levels 2–3. No archaeological residues were found in
the immediate vicinity of the KHS excavation at an elevation higher
than Levels 2–3. Thus, our findings reinforce Leakey et al.’s (1969:
1132) original observation that ‘‘the Omo I skeleton alone was associated with a small number of stone artefacts and some animal
454
Fig. 6. Debitage from KHS: (a–d) Levallois flakes, (e, f) noncortical flakes, (g, h) cortical flakes, (i) core-trimming element (distal fragment of an overshot flake), (j) core-trimming
element (overshot flake), (k) proximal fragment of Levallois flake or point. (Note: a, c, d, and k are from the Omo 1967 Collections in National Museums of Kenya.)
bone debris. Excavation of site KHS yielded some material in situ
and established the provenance of the Omo 1 skeleton in the stratigraphy of the Kibish deposits.’’ This fossil’s relative completeness
is unusual among African middle Pleistocene hominin remains, but
it is not unique in the paleontological record of the Kibish Formation. Indeed, Leakey et al. (1969: 1132) recovered the complete
skeleton of a buffalo ‘‘from the same horizon in which the Omo I
skeleton was found,’’ and our own excavations revealed relatively
complete skeletal remains of a large bird at KHS (at the Level 3/4
interface) (see Louchart, 2008). The most likely scenario for the
formation of this site is that the Omo I individual died and was
rapidly covered by sediment at about the same time as the archaeological remains were deposited at KHS, ca. 195 ka ago. We
cannot know if Omo I participated in creating the KHS assemblage;
however, we can be confident that if Omo I was not among them,
then he was a near contemporary of the KHS toolmakers.
455
Fig. 7. Retouched tools and hammerstones from KHS: (a) retouched Levallois point, (b–d) scrapers, (e) scraper and notch, (f) notch on overshot Levallois flake, (g) handaxe, (h,i)
hammerstones. (Note: a–d and f are from the Omo 1967 Collections in National Museums of Kenya.)
Awoke’s hominid site (AHS)
Awoke’s Hominid Site is located 412 meters above sea level at N
05 26.0370, E 35 55.1710 (UTM 36 N E 0823557/N 0601414) on the
southern side of the Omo River. Awoke Amzaye discovered AHS in
2003, and collected a hominin tibial fragment from its surface.
Archaeological sediments at AHS have eroded from the northwestern side of a small hill about 0.5 km south of Mushu, an
456
unoccupied Bumi village. The AHS hill is one of many clustered
together in this area and was initially recognized because numerous fossils and stone artifacts were exposed on a level area on the
side of the hill (Fig. 8). A fresh break on the hominin tibial fragment
also suggested that more remains of this individual might be
recovered. Because AHS was discovered in the last two weeks of the
2003 season, and because it was located a considerable distance
from our base camp in Rhino Canyon, excavation at AHS was more
exploratory than at KHS or BNS.
A
-2
1 1
-1
1 S
SC Area 1
5
0
SC
Area
2
+1
10
N
SC
Area 3
15
SC Area 4
20
2m
B
W E
15
10
5
1 1
-1
-5
depth (m)
below datum
Fig. 8. AHS (view east) at conclusion of 2003 excavations (J. Shea photo).
W E
5
-3
Excavation of AHS
The investigation of AHS began with a systematic surface
collection carried out by J. Fleagle, A. Amzaye, and J. Shea. Four
5 5 m2 collection squares were set up, two to the north of the
hominin fossil findspot (Collection Areas 1 and 2) and two to the
south (Collection Areas 3 and 4). A fifth collection area (Collection
Area 5) was set up to the west of Collection Area 4, on a steep,
thorn-covered slope. Amzaye, Fleagle, and Shea made the surface
collections over an area of about 117 m2.
Excavations were carried out with hand tools and all sediments
were sifted through a 50-mm wire-cloth mesh. Bumi workmen
from Kibish assisted in the screening operation. The excavation
datum for AHS was located approximately 9 m northwest (magnetic) of the hominin fossil findspot. The AHS excavation consisted
of two trenches that were eventually linked at their origin (Fig. 9).
The first was a narrow stratigraphic trench (S7/E1–8) running from
about 1 m below the hominin tibia find to approximately 2 m above
it, halfway to the crest of the hill (Fig. 10). The second trench
focused on the area surrounding the hominin tibial fragment. The
excavation of the latter trench was immediately successful, as
a conjoining fragment of the same tibia and a fibular fragment from
Level 6 were recovered on the first day of excavation. Our excavations at AHS exposed 17 m2 to a depth of at least 2.0 m below
datum.
The stratigraphy of AHS is a sequence of sand levels with varying
silt and humus components. Ten major levels were recognized,
though some of these were not originally distinguished during the
course of excavation (Table 5). Peak densities of lithic remains and
vertebrate fossils occur in Levels 3–4 and 6. Most of the rest of the
AHS lithic assemblages come from levels contiguous to Levels 3–4
and 6 or from excavation units that were inadvertently combined
with these excavation levels. Levels 8–10 were archaeologically
sterile. The distribution of faunal remains also supports the
10
15
Fig. 9. AHS excavation: (A) plan view showing excavated area (shaded) and surface
collection (SC) areas; (B) cross section.
conclusion that Levels 4 and 6 are the main anthropological
horizons. One interesting aspect of the AHS stratigraphy noted in
the profiles was the presence of ‘‘terriers,’’ intrusive features that
resemble shallow pits or post-molds. They might also include
animal burrows. These features clearly require closer scrutiny in
any future excavations at AHS.
AHS lithic assemblage
Table 6 summarizes the contents of the AHS assemblage in
terms of provenience, artifact categories, and raw materials. For
the purpose of this analysis, the lithic artifacts from Levels 1–5
and those from Levels 6–8 will be treated separately as ‘‘AHS
1–5’’ and ‘‘AHS 6–8’’ assemblages. This presentation obviously
conflates assemblages from separate levels, but it is a realistic
reflection of the uncertainties we faced in excavation. Many of
the stratigraphic levels at AHS are so similar to one another in
appearance that the disconformities separating them could only
be recognized in retrospect during profile cleaning. The surfacecollected assemblage is tabulated separately, because its contents
undoubtedly reflect collection biases. The AHS Surface, Levels
1–5, and Levels 6–8 are all dominated by debris, and thus, for
clarity, tabulations of artifact categories are also tabulated
without debris in the denominator. Time constraints precluded
detailed analysis of the vast quantity of debris from this site, and
thus the counts of raw materials are unaffected by the exclusion
of debris from totals.
The AHS assemblages feature an extraordinary diversity of lithic
raw materials. Chert is the most common material (43%) by several
orders of magnitude over the other rock types. Rhyolite and shale
Depth (m)
Below
Datum
-1.0
S7-8/W5
S7-8/W6
S7-8/W7
S7-8/W8
topsoil
2
3
4
-1.5
457
3
4
5
6a
5
6
6b
6c
7a
6a
6b
6c
6d
7
topsoil
7
-2.0
8
9
8
9
10
disturbed sediments
-2.5
Fig. 10. AHS excavation profile along Units S7–8/W5–8. Shaded areas are intrusive features (either post-molds, pits, or animal burrows).
are the next most common raw materials. A substantial proportion
of artifacts is classified as ‘‘indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline
silicate’’ (IOCCS in tables). The latter remains are represented either
by single artifacts or small numbers of flakes, very often ones from
either the same or contiguous excavation squares. Fine-grained
silicate rocks (jasper, chalcedony, chert) are somewhat more
common in the AHS Surface and AHS 6–8 subassemblages (71% and
74%, respectively) than in AHS 1–5 (52%).
Two of the less common materials at AHS merit comment. Like
KHS, AHS also preserves pieces of opal silica. One of these was
a surface find. The other was recovered from AHS Level 6. These
artifacts neither refit nor conjoin to one another, nor do they appear
to have been knapped. Again, it is possible that this material had
some other purpose than raw material for flaked stone production.
Also notable at AHS is a variety of pink shale. This material has
a very low silica content; nevertheless, it was the focus of considerable lithic reduction. One can only speculate that it may have
been the color or some other property of this material that
influenced its intense reduction.
Flakes and flake fragments dominate the nondebris subassemblage from AHS. Among the artifacts recovered by excavation,
artifact surface preservation is generally excellent. Basalt artifacts
are somewhat more weathered than those made of fine-grained
silicate rocks, but this is the case in all of the Omo Kibish MSA
samples. Retouched tools are more common among the surface
collection. This could reflect collection bias, the equifinality of
retouch and postdepositional surface modification, or both.
A total of 35 cores were recovered from AHS (Fig. 11). Asymmetrical discoids are the most common core type in both surface
and excavated assemblages. The Levallois core component of this
assemblage is composed exclusively of Levallois flake cores,
typically ones with a single, relatively large preferential central
flake scar. There are some differences in the frequencies of core
types among the AHS Surface, Levels 1–5, and Levels 6–8 subassemblages, but the numbers of artifacts involved are so small as
to preclude an assessment of the statistical significance of these
differences. Descriptive statistics for the measurements made on
the AHS cores are presented in Table 7.
The nondebris flake component of the AHS assemblage contains
1260 artifacts (Fig. 12). Initial and residual cortical flakes are
prominent among the whole flakes from both assemblages (though
slightly more common, proportionately, in Levels 6–8), suggesting
either a nearby source of raw materials or transport of raw materials in the form of minimally reduced clasts. Levallois flakes and
pseudo-Levallois points are also common. Pseudo-Levallois points
are common by-products of discoidal core reduction (Clark, 1984:
254; Boëda et al., 1990), and their prominence in the AHS assemblages may be linked to the high proportion of discoids among the
Table 5
Descriptive statistics for variables measured (in mm) on cores, whole flakes, and retouched flake tools from KHS
Artifact category
Statistics
Length
Width
Thickness
Striking platform width
Striking platform thickness
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
45
30
23–120
12
37
24
22–104
12
18
15
7–56
12
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
42
17
30–111
26
31
11
16-59
26
10
10
2–55
26
22
11
5–46
22
7
4
2–18
22
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
43
17
14–81
13
30
8
20–45
13
9
4
4–17
13
29
8
19–43
8
7
2
4–11
9
Cores
Whole flakes
Retouched flake tools
Note: For cores, length, width, and thickness are morphological; for whole flakes and retouched flake tools, length, width, and thickness are technological (see Appendix).
458
Table 6
Summary of AHS assemblages: Artifacts by proveniences and rock types
Tool group
Tool type
n (subtotal %)
Bifacial chopper
Discoid
Core scraper
Levallois flake core
Core on flake
Other core type
Core fragment
Core subtotal
1
3
4
9
4
3
1
10
35 (1)
Cobble fragment
Levallois flake
Levallois point
Atypical Levallois flake
Atypical Levallois blade
Atypical Levallois point
Kombewa flake
Blade
Noncortical flake
Biface-thinning flake
Blocky fragment
Flake subtotal
27
68
84
38
8
3
1
1
45
2
4
248
2
41
219
450
19
1260 (16)
Debris and subtotal
6377 (82)
Point
Sidescraper
Double scraper
Transverse scraper
Awl
Backed knife
Notch
Denticulate
Bipolar flake
Foliate point fragment
Handaxe
2
13
5
6
4
2
3
6
1
12
9
1
64 (1)
n
% without debris
7737 (100)
% without debris
AHS 1–5
AHS 6–8
AHS surface
Jasper
Chalcedony
Chert
IOCCS
Shale
Rhyolite
Basalt
Core
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.7
2.6
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
3
1
7
19
1
1
1
5
4
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
13
1
6
1
5
4
13
13
25
30
16
1
1
4
6
6
2
1
4
4
7
1
1
15
34
34
19
3
2
18
5
2
11
12
3
7
24
2
71
3
17
29
3
83
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
6
2
6
15
5
8
7
3
Debitage
1
46
85
5
225
14
35
41
15
6
2
1
1
17
1
1
114
1
19
104
221
9
602
3
86
1
21
69
144
5
433
997
4541
839
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
3
10
1235
18
8
13
7
1
10
1
48
1
19
2
122
1
18
81
184
9
544
1
7
8
2
3
0
1
0
3
1
0
30
0
4
34
65
1
160
1
4
1
21
1
2
30
49
3
128
4
8
1
38
1
14
7
32
75
4
18
24
1
88
186
Debris
0
Retouched tool
0.1
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.7
0.1
4.7
5
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
1
22
4
1
8
4
1
32
9
12
4
2
2
1
3
1
4
3
1
26
5184
47
1317
35
86
6
100
7
583
43
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
1
3
1
1
10
2
1
169
12
142
10
189
14
90
7
3
1
1
1
1
Total
Note: IOCCS ¼ indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline silicate.
100
2.0
5.0
6.2
2.8
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.3
0.1
0.3
18.2
0.1
3.0
16.1
33.1
1.4
92.6
459
Fig. 11. Cores from AHS: (a) Levallois core with overshot flake scar, (b) Levallois core with truncated flake scar, (c) Levallois core, (d, e) Levallois cores with bidirectional-opposed
preparation, (f, g) discoidal cores.
AHS core subassemblage. Of the 572 whole flakes from AHS, 341
(60%) were sufficiently well preserved for the full set of technological measurements to be made on them (see also Table 7).
There are 64 retouched artifacts in the AHS assemblages (Figs. 13
and 14). The most common retouched tool types are sidescrapers
and ‘‘other retouched flakes.’’ There are more retouched tools and
a greater variety of retouched tool types in AHS Levels 6–8 than in
Levels 1–5. This probably reflects differences in sample size. A small
number of foliate point fragments and bifacially retouched tools
were recovered from AHS. The presence of foliate points at AHS is
important because it indicates that these artifacts were in use from
the beginning of the Kibish sequence. This being said, the foliatepoint fragments from AHS are not precisely the same small,
symmetrical pieces seen in Member III assemblages and surface
collections and in later east African MSA contexts elsewhere (e.g.,
Gademotta, Porc Epic; see discussion below). Larger excavated
samples from AHS and other Kibish Member I contexts are needed
to shed light on the variability of foliate points and other bifacially
460
Table 7
Descriptive statistics for variables measured (in mm) on cores, whole flakes, and retouched flake tools from AHS
Artifact category
Statistics
Length
Width
Thickness
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
39
6
32–56
18
33
5
24–46
18
14
5
4–30
18
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
30
11
13–86
341
25
9
12–71
341
5
3
2–18
341
18
8
4–52
341
4
2
1–16
341
Mean
Standard deviation
Range
Count
34
11
18–59
54
30
8
13–52
54
9
5
2–36
54
24
11
8–47
23
6
2
4–12
23
Cores
Whole flakes
flaked artifacts. Descriptive statistics for measurements of
retouched tools from AHS are also presented in Table 7.
No hammerstones were recovered from AHS. A small pellet of
red ochre (AHS #2100) was recovered from AHS Level 6. There is no
obvious sign of abrasion or modification on its surface. It is not
beyond the realm of possibility that this ‘‘ochre’’ is merely
a decomposing fragment of the red shale that is common in the
AHS lithic assemblage.
No refitting constellations have been identified at AHS. This is
not because they are absent, but rather a reflection of limited time
in the field and opportunities for laboratory work in Addis Ababa
during the 2003 season. During the course of excavation and
surface collection, clusters of stone tools of the same raw material
type were noted on the surface and in both the AHS 1–5 and AHS
6–8 subassemblages. These observations suggest that future
studies of the AHS assemblage will probably reveal refitting
constellations.
AHS faunal evidence
Identified nonhuman vertebrate faunal remains from AHS
include those of Hippopotamus amphibius, Crocodylus niloticus,
Giraffa spp., and Litocranius cf. L. walleri. These fossils and other
faunal remains from AHS are described by Assefa et al. (2008).
Interpretation of AHS
The AHS occurrence is a multicomponent site. If the contents of
our trenches are representative of the site as a whole, there appear
to have been at least two major phases of occupation. These
resulted in dense concentrations of artifacts in Levels 4 and 6. The
only human remains from this site are two conjoining tibial fragments from the surface and Level 6. There do not appear to be
marked technological or typological contrasts between the Level
1–4 and Level 6–8 lithic assemblages. The abundant debris, cortical
flakes, and non-Levallois debitage in the AHS assemblages suggest
that a considerable amount of stone tool production occurred at
this locality, possibly as the result of repeated, sustained occupations. Following this logic, AHS Levels 4 and 6 seem likely to have
been more substantial occupations than either KHS Level 3 or BNS
Level 3.
The Bird’s Nest Site (BNS)
The BNS was discovered by Z. Assefa in 2002, during a canvass of
the environs of the Omo II/PHS locality. It is located at 424 m above
sea level on the southern side of the Omo River at N 5 24.4620 , E
35 53.9750 (UTM 36 N E 0821360/N 0598499). The site is a promontory comprising a series of two small hills, each of which sits on
top of a plateau of the uppermost level of Kibish Member II (Fig. 15).
The first and southernmost hill (BNS East) is about 2 m above
the surrounding floodplain, and the second hill (BNS Main) is about
3 m above the floodplain. Both are arrayed in a line extending
southeast from a much taller set of hills composed mainly of
Member III sediments. The bulk of archaeological residues derive
from the saddle north of BNS Main (where the eponymous bird’s
nest was also located) on the disconformity separating uppermost
Member II from lowermost Member III. The areas to the west and
east of BNS are relatively flat alluvial floodplains, all meandering
eastward towards the Omo River.
Excavation of BNS
The datum for BNS is located about 8 m north of the northernmost excavation square (on the slope of a large hill) and about 4 m
above the surface of the site. The site was excavated using hand
tools. Bumi workmen from Kibish and policemen from the Kibish
Police Post assisted in screening (50-mm mesh). Excavation of BNS
began in 2002 with a trench (S1) running 5 m west–east (Fig. 16).
This trench was extended southward underneath BNS Main following a thin deposit of the sole artifact-bearing level, Level 3. The
rows adjacent to E1 were gridded and systematically surface-collected. At the same time, a small test trench was excavated into BNS
East. While this trench confirmed that Level 3 extended this far
across the site, it also yielded only one artifact and no fossils, suggesting that the high density of archaeological remains did not
continue in this direction. In 2003, the excavation was extended
south around the periphery of the BNS Main hill where substantial
numbers of artifacts were eroding from Level 3. During the course
of this excavation we recovered numerous stone tools, bone fragments, and reddish patches suggesting combustion features. The
latter were also typically associated with fragments of ostrich
eggshell. We also made extensive surface collections in several of
the steep erosional gullies flanking BNS. About half of the BNS Main
hill was left undisturbeddan unintentional witness baulkdwhen
an aborted cattle raid and ensuing gunfire interrupted excavations,
which required us to close excavations at the site several days
ahead of schedule.
The stratigraphy of the BNS encapsulates the transition between
Kibish Members II and III. This stratigraphy is summarized in Table
8 and a profile is shown in Fig. 17. The principal archaeological level
of BNS, BNS Level 3 (hereafter BNS L3), is directly superposed on the
461
Fig. 12. Debitage from AHS: (a–c) small Levallois flakes, (d, e) small Levallois points, (f–h) pseudo-Levallois points, (i, j) Levallois flakes, (k) left lateral fragment of an overshot
Levallois flake, (l, m) cortical flakes.
erosional disconformity at the top of Member II. Level 3 of BNS is
a sand and silt deposit approximately 10 cm thick throughout its
exposure. This level appears thicker towards the southern part of
the site and thinner to the east and west. A massive silt deposit, the
lowermost part of Member III, with its distinct, dark-brown anoxic
stratum, directly overlies Level 3. The undated Member II tuff is
visible 1.35 m below BNS L3. The Member III tuff, which is located at
higher elevations than BNS L3, though not present in the
462
Fig. 13. Retouched tools from AHSdunifacially retouched tools: (a) retouched Levallois point, (b–e) scrapers, (f) awl/perforator, (g, h) truncations, (i, j) transverse/convergent
scrapers.
463
Fig. 14. Retouched tools from AHSdbifacially retouched tools: (a) tip of biface, (b) point on flake with bifacial and unifacial retouch on opposite lateral edges, (c) foliate point, (d)
handaxe, (e, f) proximal flake fragments with bifacial retouch on one edge, (g) distal flake fragment with bifacial retouch, (h) possible basal fragment of biface.
immediate site environs, is dated to 104 1 ka (McDougall et al.,
2005). This date provides a minimum age for BNS.
BNS lithic assemblage
Table 9 summarizes the contents of the BHS lithic assemblage in
terms of provenience, artifact categories, and raw materials. There
are four main subassemblages from BNS. Level 3 of BNS includes all
artifacts recovered in situ in Level 3, the surface collection from
adjacent squares, and the single artifact from the BNS East test
trench. A second subassemblage (BNS Area <50 m) comprises
artifacts collected 1–50 m from the edge of the BNS areas of excavation and systematic surface collection. These artifacts, for the
most part, come from steep erosional gullies leading directly away
from the BNS (<10 m away) and from exposures of BNS L3 near the
base of the large hill to the north of the site (most less than 20 m
away). A third subassemblage (BNS Area 50–100 m) includes four
artifacts found 50–100 m distant (though mostly closer to
464
Fig. 15. BNS (view south) at the end of 2003 excavations (J. Shea photo).
50–75 m) on relatively level surfaces of alluvial fans trailing away
from the gullies flanking the excavation site.
Lithic raw materials in the BNS assemblage are dominated by
fine-grained and highly siliceous rocks, mostly chert, but with
significant components of jasper and chalcedony. Rhyolite is also
prominently represented.
The main difference among these samples is that debris is more
prominent in the BNS L3 assemblage than it is in the surface-collected assemblages. Otherwise, the proportions of cores, debitage,
and retouched tools do not differ significantly between the BNS L3
and BNS Area <50 m samples.
Seventy-four cores and core fragments were recovered from
BNS (Figs. 18–20). Asymmetrical discoids are the most common
core type at BNS by a considerable margin, accounting for about
half of the cores. Levallois flake cores and core fragments (mostly
fragments of asymmetrical discoids) are also present in significant
numbers. Table 10 presents descriptive statistics for the metric
variables measured on the BNS cores.
Excluding debris (n ¼ 999), there are 820 flakes and flake fragments in the BNS debitage sample (Fig. 21). Fully 34% of the flakes
from BNS are cobble fragments, initial cortical flakes, or residual
-4
cortical flakes, again (as at AHS) suggesting a nearby raw material
source and/or transport of minimally modified clasts. As was also
seen at AHS, Levallois flakes and pseudo-Levallois points are
prominent components of the whole, noncortical flake
subassemblage. Table 10 also presents descriptive statistics for the
technological variables measured on the BNS debitage.
The BNS assemblage contains 30 retouched tools (Fig. 22).
Foliate point fragments are the most numerous retouched tool
category, but at least half of these artifacts are from surface
contexts. Various forms of scrapers account for about 27% of the
retouched tools. Bipolar flakes and backed knives (both of which
are included here among retouched tools) present something of
a problem. The damage on the bipolar flakes bears more than
a passing resemblance to use-related microfracturing rather than
retouch. Similarly, the ‘‘backing’’ on the BNS backed knives is not
consistent in its distribution or morphology. The artifacts in these
two tool categories may well be the results of either use rather than
deliberate shaping. Only four of the 30 retouched tools from BNS
retain enough of their original flake surfaces to allow measurement
of the flake dimensions (see also Table 10). One foliate point and
four foliate point fragments from BNS were also measured, but
-6
-5
-3
-2
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 14 15 16 17
-1
5
4
3
2
E1
W1
2
3
4
"BNS
Main"
"BNS East"
Excavated Units
5 meters
Fig. 16. Plan of BNS excavations.
Isolated surface finds in Members I–III
Table 8
BNS stratigraphy
Level
Matrix and approximate elevation below datum at
SW corner of N1/E1
Lithics
Fossils
1
Gray clay with two prominent dark-brown bands
separated by a light-brown clay band with orange
ferruginous deposits (<3.75 m). This is the
lowermost Member III.
Dark-brown silt (3.75–3.82 m). Thickness varies
widely between 2 and 10 cm across the site.
Light-gray-tan sand with rounded sandstone
concretions at the base (3.82–3.92 m). Thickness
wedges from 10 to 5 cm to the north.
Gray laminated clays (3.92–5.00 m). This is the
eroded uppermost part of Member II.
Absent
Absent
Present?
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
2
3
4
465
these were measured using different criteria (i.e., maximum length,
maximum width, maximum thickness) (see also Table 10).
Twenty-four refitting constellations were identified among the
BNS assemblage (see Sisk and Shea, 2008). Of these constellations,
only five are conjoins (broken flakes). The rest are refits or mixed
sets of technological refits and conjoins. Among the refits, the
majority (16, or 84%) result from either core preparation, core
exploitation, or both. Core rejuvenation is represented by only
three constellations. Like the refitting constellations at KHS, refitting sets that contain cortical flakes usually feature unilinear flake
removals, while those involving cores and/or refitting sets of
noncortical flakes tend to feature radial/centripetal core surface
preparation. This evidence reinforces the picture of a technological
strategy that changes dynamically along the course of core
reduction, switching from unilinear to radial/centripetal coresurface preparation along with diminution in core size.
BNS faunal evidence
The faunal remains from BNS and the gullies flanking it that
could be identified to taxon include those of Hippopotamus, Phacochoerus africanus, Thronomys gregorianus, and various Bovini. A
fuller discussion of these remains is presented by Assefa et al.
(2008). Numerous fragments of ostrich eggshell were excavated
from Level 3 in squares S15/E3 and S16/E3. The sediments around
these eggshells were reddened, possibly from fire, but no macroscopic carbon fragments were observed.
Interpretation of BNS
The BNS occurrence appears to be a site consisting of many
small occupation units. There is no clear evidence for structures or
features, but rather only evidence for the production of flakes from
pebble cores. A minimalist interpretation would view BNS as
a fortuitously preserved part of the landscape in which flintknapping occurred on a semiregular basis immediately preceding the
massive flooding that marked the deposition of basal Member III.
Many isolated finds of stone tools were made on eroding
surfaces of Members I–III during our investigations in the Kibish
Formation and by the 1967 Kenyan expedition (Figs. 23–25). Surface finds were not collected systematically, and they are thus not
strictly comparable in statistical terms with the excavated assemblages. There are some clear differences between the surfacecollected artifacts and the excavated assemblages that may be
archaeologically significant. Among the surface finds, there are
many large pointed artifacts, Levallois points, foliate bifacial points,
lanceolate bifaces, handaxes, and ‘‘heavy duty’’ core-tools, such as
core-axes and picks. Few such tools occur in the excavated
assemblages.
One possible explanation for these differences is that they
reflect an unconscious collection bias on our part, our eyes naturally being attracted to large symmetrical artifacts. Archaeological surface collections in many parts of the world are affected by
similar kinds of collection biases, and we cannot reject this
explanation.
A second possibility is that some of these surface finds may be
redeposited from older sediments. This is unlikely. If it were true,
one would expect these tools to exhibit surfaces abraded from
fluvial transport. It is not the case that the surface-collected
artifacts as a group are disproportionately heavily weathered.
Basalt artifacts are more weathered that nonbasalt artifacts, and
this difference is also seen in the excavated assemblages. The
nonbasalt surface finds are not, as a group, more heavily weathered
than artifacts of the same raw materials recovered by excavation.
A third possibility is that these artifacts reflect different patterns
of artifact discard behavior than those involved in the accumulation
of the dense artifact ‘‘patches’’ on which our excavations focused.
There is no reason to assume that the Kibish MSA humans had
a single unvarying technological strategy whose lithic ‘‘signature’’
remained the same throughout their annual round and across the
Lower Omo Valley paleolandscape. Further investigations of the
lithic ‘‘scatter between the patches’’ in the Kibish Formation are
needed to test this hypothesis.
Overview of the Omo Kibish MSA
This section presents an overview of the Kibish Middle Stone
Age assemblages in strategic perspective. That is, it attempts to
relate the tabulations of artifact frequencies in the foregoing
sections to variation in technological strategies.
Lithic raw material economy
The most likely sources of the lithic raw materials in the Omo
Kibish MSA assemblages are gravel deposits in Kibish Formation
Member I. This inference is supported by the high proportions of
cortical flakes and debris in all of the MSA assemblages and by our
Depth (m)
Below Datum
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
BNS Main Excavation
BNS East
archaeological level
(Level 3)
Member 3
Member 2
Member 1
8
5
1 1
North
5
10
15
South
Fig. 17. Profile of BNS.
20
25
30
35
Tool group
Tool type
n (subtotal %)
% without debris
466
Table 9
Summary of BNS assemblages: Artifacts by proveniences and rock types
Provenience
BNS L3
Raw material
BNS <50 m
BNS >50 m
Jasper
Chalcedony
Chert
IOCCS
Shale
Rhyolite
Basalt
Ind. volc.
Core
Bifacial chopper
Partial discoid
Polyhedron
Levallois flake core
Core on flake
Other core type
Core fragment
Core subtotal
5
4
1
37
8
2
2
15
74 (3.8)
0.5
0.4
0.1
4.0
0.9
0.2
0.2
1.6
8.0
2
1
01. Cobble fragment
02. Initial cortical flake
03. Residual cortical flake
04. Levallois flake
05. Levallois blade
06. Levallois point
07. Atypical Levallois flake
09. Atypical Levallois point
10. Pseudo-Levallois point
11. Kombewa flake
12. Blade
13. Noncortical flake
14. Biface-thinning flake
15. Core-trimming element
16. Flake fragment, proximal
17. Flake fragment, other
18. Blocky fragment
Flake subtotal
61
101
122
30
1
2
1
1
19
1
3
112
2
60
84
204
16
820 (42.6)
19. Debris
999 (51.9)
02. Hammerstone fragment
Hammerstone subtotal
1
1 (0.1)
0.1
0.1
1
1
02. Sidescraper
03. Double scraper
04. Convergent sidescraper
05. Transverse scraper
07. Backed knife
10. Bipolar flake
11. Other retouched flake
12. Foliate point
12. Foliate point fragment
4
2
1
1
6
6
2
1
7
30 (1.6)
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.8
3.2
2
2
20
3
2
2
11
41
3
3
1
17
5
1
1
2
7
2
9
4
33
1
2
13
1
2
13
7
14
15
3
14
17
21
4
1
15
6
1
7
31
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
2
2
7
3
1
1
1
2
12
1
1
1
1
12
17
23
4
3
9
8
2
6
2
5
5
Flake
39
59
74
18
1
22
41
48
12
1
9
18
2
11
13
25
2
102
3
5
20
3
105
17
34
46
11
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
43
1
24
33
58
8
293
104
201
524
1
2
1
1
9
1
2
76
1
39
40
118
9
488
1
35
1
21
44
86
7
330
952
47
10
3
1
3
5
6
1
23
1
11
20
46
1
162
15
61
2
1
5
11
2
35
35
2
8
4
9
7
31
80
1
1
11
2
37
53
6
Debris
Hammerstone
1
1
Retouched tool
Total
1924 (100.0)
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
3
13
2
15
2
2
2
4
1
3
5
4
1
1
1
15
1495
425
4
223
322
863
1
2
1
2
3
74
23
1
4
1
239
136
44
Column total
Column total without debris
100.0
58.7
Note: IOCCS ¼ indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline silicate, Ind. volc. ¼ indeterminate volcanic.
40.9
0.4
12.9
13.1
36.6
4.2
0.9
19.2
9.0
4.1
6.6
10.9
13.2
3.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.3
12.1
0.2
6.5
9.1
22.1
1.7
88.6
467
Fig. 18. Large cores from BNS: (a–c) Levallois cores, (d) pebble-core (bifacial chopper).
surveys of raw materials in contemporary exposures of gravel
deposits in Kibish Member I. The overwhelming majority of pebbles
and cobbles in these gravels are basalt and rhyolite. Most of these
rocks possess poor conchoidal fracture properties, owing to large
crystal sizes, but fine-grained rhyolite and basalt can be found with
little difficulty. Rocks with high silica content and good conchoidal
fracture properties, such as jasper, chalcedony, and chert, are
present in abundance in all contemporary exposures of Kibish
Formation gravels. The main difference between these high-quality
raw materials and the coarse-grained volcanics in Kibish Member I
gravel deposits is that the high-quality rocks are generally available
in smaller clast sizes. The only raw material observed in the
468
Fig. 19. Medium-sized cores from BNS: (a) partial discoid, (b) Levallois core, (c) Kombewa core on cortical flake fragment, (d) asymmetrical discoid, (e) Levallois core, (f, g) discoidal
cores.
archaeological assemblages but not in the gravel exposures was the
opal silica seen at KHS and AHS.
Percentages of cores, whole flakes (all flakes minus nonproximal flake fragments and debris), and retouched tools from
each site made of different rock types are presented in Table 11. In
terms of raw counts of different rock types, chert is the most
popular raw material in each of the assemblages. The next most
common raw material varies from site to site, but all of the major
tool categories in all of the sites present the same basic pattern.
The overwhelming majority of artifacts listed (60–95% per
assemblage) are made of high-quality lithic raw materials (jasper,
chalcedony, chert, and other cryptocrystalline silicates), while
469
Fig. 20. Small cores from BNS: (a) asymmetrical discoid, (b) core-on-flake, (c) asymmetrical discoid, (d) fragment of core-on-flake, (e, f) asymmetrical discoid, (g) split core (partial
discoid), (h) discoidal core, (i) Levallois point core, (j) asymmetrical discoid.
470
Table 10
Descriptive statistics for variables measured (in mm) on cores, whole flakes, and retouched flake tools from BNS
Artifact category
Statistics
Length
Width
Thickness
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
Count
42
11
28–74
34
34
10
18–63
34
18
7
7–40
34
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
Count
32
11
3–95
139
26
9
9–54
139
7
3
2–23
139
17
8
2–40
139
5
3
1–25
139
Mean
Standard Deviation
Range
Count
32
14
20–47
4
27
8
18–38
4
11
4
6–16
4
16
n.a.
16
1
4
n.a.
4
1
Cores
Whole flakes
a minority (5–40% per assemblage) are made of low-quality raw
materials (shale, rhyolite, basalt, and other volcanics) (Table 12).
These proportions of high- vs. low-quality raw materials are very
nearly the opposite of these rocks’ representation in Kibish
Formation gravels. From this difference, one can conclude the
Kibish MSA humans exercised a high degree of selectivity in rawmaterial choice. However, a very different pattern appears when
one examines the intensity to which raw materials of differing
quality were reduced. Low-quality raw materials exhibit consistently higher ratios of ‘‘whole flakes’’ (complete flakes and proximal flake fragments) to cores than do high-quality rock types in
each of the Kibish assemblages (Table 12).
One further aspect of raw material choice requires comment.
Fairly consistently among all three assemblages, the most heavily
modified artifacts (cores, retouched tools) and many of the smallest
flakes are of rocks with a red color (usually jasper, chert, and shale).
Inasmuch as these are also high-quality raw materials, this seeming
emphasis on the reduction of red clasts may simply be a coincidence. On the other hand, there are well-documented patterns
of symbolic behavior, usually involving red mineral pigments in
Africa and elsewhere (Wreschner, 1980; Barham, 2002; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; Hovers et al., 2003). A cultural preference
for red raw materials might explain the intense reduction of
otherwise rather poor-quality shale at AHS. Testing the hypothesis
of a possible color preference in Kibish MSA raw material economy
requires further study.
Core technology
The percentages of cores, flakes, and retouched tools (excluding
debris) for KHS, AHS, and BNS are presented in Table 13. Overall, the
most common core types are asymmetrical discoids and Levallois
cores. Together, these core types account for 69% of all of the whole
cores in the Kibish MSA assemblages. Most of the other morphological core types are each represented by only a few specimens,
and thus little more can be inferred from their statistical variation.
The highly contingent classification of core types in Table 13 in
some ways obscures more basic technological variation. Regrouping these morphological core types into pebble cores, formal cores,
cores-on-flakes, and ‘‘other’’ cores/core fragments, we can shed
light on technological variability among the Kibish MSA
assemblages.
‘‘Pebble cores’’ are those cores whose overall shape reflects their
origin as a clast (either a pebble or a cobble). This category
subsumes choppers, core-scrapers, discoids, and polyhedrons. In
structural terms, the planes formed by the striking platform and
flake release surfaces are largely interchangeable. Consequently,
the size and shape of flakes detached from these cores are largely
determined by the original configuration of the raw material and by
the effects of greater or lesser, usually expedient, reduction (Toth,
1985). Increased production of such expedient cores has been
linked by Parry and Kelly (1987) to increased sedentism, and by
Kuhn (1995) to technological strategies emphasizing the provisioning of places in bulk with raw materials.
‘‘Formal cores’’ are those cores whose overall shape reflects the
imposition and maintenance of a hierarchy of striking platform and
flake release surfaces. This category subsumes Levallois cores and
asymmetrical discoids. Maintaining a particular flake release surface results in flakes with particular, predictable morphologies,
usually ones that either optimize potential cutting edge (per unit of
core mass) or, failing this, ones that maintain the distal and lateral
convexities of the flake release surface (Boëda et al., 1990; Sandgathe, 2004). Including asymmetrical discoids among such cores, as
is done here, reflects the observation that these cores exhibit a clear
hierarchy of striking platform and flake release surfaces. Parry and
Kelly (1987) argued that the increased production of formal cores
reflects an accommodation to high residential mobility, or, as Kuhn
(1995) puts it, a strategy emphasizing ‘‘provisioning people’’ with
raw materials in efficiently transportable forms.
Whether ‘‘cores-on-flakes’’ ought to be treated as a subset of
formal cores or as a category in their own right is debatable. They
have much in common with pebble cores in that their shape largely
reflects their appearance at the point they were co-opted for use as
a source of flakes. On the other hand, the cores-on-flakes in Kibish
MSA assemblages clearly have a hierarchy of flake release surfaces
(usually the former flake ventral surface) and striking platform
surfaces (usually a truncation or steep retouch on the flake’s dorsal
surface). They differ from other formal core types only in that the
shape of the flakes detached from their flake release surface is
usually predetermined by preexisting dorsal scar ridges or the
bulbar convexity, rather than by previous flake removals.
Table 13 also presents the core component of the Kibish MSA
assemblages in terms of this simplified core classification. Formal
cores outnumber pebble cores in all of the assemblages except AHS
Levels 1–5. They predominate only in the BNS assemblage. The final
shape of a core at discard can reflect many factors, but if we follow
the models of Parry and Kelly (1987) and Kuhn (1995; see also
Wallace and Shea, 2006), then one could infer that the predominance of formal cores in the Kibish MSA may reflect overall
high levels of residential mobility. Obviously, additional samples
and further independent measures of mobility pattern variation are
needed to test this hypothesis.
471
Fig. 21. Debitage from BNS: (a–d) Levallois flakes, (e–i) Levallois points, (j, k) core-trimming flakes, (l) noncortical flake.
One of the most striking features of the Kibish MSA assemblages
is the small size of the cores, particularly the ‘‘formal’’ cores (Table
14; Fig. 26). More than 85% of the cores from our sites are less than
50 cm3. The overall mean core volume for the three assemblages is
25 cm3. The cores from KHS appear to be larger on average than
those from AHS and BNS, but this reflects the skewing effect of two
very large cores from KHS (both from the 1967 Kenyan collection).
Removing these cores from consideration drops the mean core
volume at KHS to 11 cm3. At first glance, these cores’ small size
suggests more intense reduction than seen in other east African
MSA assemblages featuring larger cores; but the small size of the
Kibish MSA cores almost certainly reflects their origin as relatively
small clasts. Despite the remarkable nature of the small cores from
the Kibish MSA, it is not the case that core reduction intensity is
uniformly high. Ratios of flakes to cores vary widely among the
Kibish MSA assemblages. At AHS, Levels 1–5 (47:1) and Levels 6–8
(32:1) appear to have been the focus of considerably greater
knapping activity than either KHS (5:1) or BNS (9:1).
Debitage technology
Table 15 presents the frequencies of different debitage types for
KHS, AHS, and BNS. In all of these assemblages, nonproximal flake
fragments are the most common debitage category, followed by
472
Fig. 22. Retouched tools from BNS: (a) foliate point, (b) proximal fragment of foliate point with possible impact fractures, (c) foliate point with distal breakage and
subsequent retouch, (d) foliate point, (e) foliate point on flake, (f), double scraper, (g) proximal fragment of foliate point, (h) proximal flake fragment with ventral retouch, (i)
double scraper.
473
Fig. 23. Selected isolated surface finds from the Kibish Formation Members 1 and 3dLevallois points/triangular flakes: (a–c) Levallois points, (d, e) retouched Levallois points, (f–h)
elongated Levallois points. (Note: e is from the Omo 1967 Collections in National Museums of Kenya.)
proximal flake fragments and various cortical flakes. Levallois
debitage and pseudo-Levallois points constitute a significant
minority of the flakes from each site. The prominence and consistency with which these debitage types occur in the Kibish MSA
assemblages suggests a pattern of core reduction that, following
decortication, probably alternated between recurrent radial/
centripetal flake removals (which create pseudo-Levallois points)
and large preferential flake removals (which create both ‘‘typical’’
and ‘‘atypical’’ Levallois debitage).
As with morphological core types, such a highly contingent
classification of debitage as presented in Table 15 obscures basic
patterns of technological variation. Following the method of
Geneste (1985), these debitage types can be grouped together into
flakes originating in the same kind of technical operation. These
operations and their associated debitage types are initial core
preparation (cobble fragments, initial and residual and cortical
flakes), core exploitation/reduction (Levallois debitage, Kombewa
flakes, blades, other noncortical flakes, and proximal flake fragments), and core rejuvenation (core-trimming elements). Debris
and nonproximal flake fragments are not included in this tabulation, because they can occur in any of these technological operations. (Biface-thinning flakes could reflect either core exploitation
474
Fig. 24. Surface finds from the Kibish Formation Members 1 and 3dpointed bifaces: (a–c) foliate points, (d) lanceolate point, (e) elongated handaxe. (Note: b and c are from the
Omo 1967 Collections in National Museums of Kenya.)
or core rejuvenation, depending on their size; but they are so few in
number in the Kibish assemblages that placing them in either
category makes no difference in the resulting statistics.) Table 15
also presents the debitage for KHS, AHS, and BNS reorganized in
terms of these three technical operations. Kamoya’s Hominid Site
and BNS exhibit nearly identical patterns of technological variation,
about even percentages (40–50%) of flakes referable to core preparation and core exploitation. The AHS assemblages exhibit considerably greater proportions of core exploitation flakes (71–84%)
compared to core preparation (16–24%). Core rejuvenation
accounts for a small percentage (1–10%) of the flakes in any of the
assemblages. This latter pattern may reflect the fact that many of
475
Fig. 25. Surface finds from the Kibish Formation Members I and IIIdcore-axes and picks: (a) core-axe, (b) pick. (Note: b is from the Omo 1967 Collections in National Museums of
Kenya.)
Table 11
Percentages of different raw materials in major tool categories for KHS, AHS, and BNS
High-quality raw materials
Low-quality raw materials
Sample
Jasper
Chalcedony
Chert
KHS cores
KHS flakes
KHS rettls
KHS total
42
26
10
27
17
19
0
16
25
25
30
26
AHS cores
AHS flakes
AHS rettls
AHS total
17
6
14
7
14
7
19
8
BNS cores
BNS flakes
BNS rettls
BNS total
18
13
13
13
18
14
10
14
IOCCS
Subtotal
Shale
Rhyolite
Basalt
Indet. volcanic
Subtotal
Row total (n)
0
4
0
3
83
75
40
71
4
7
20
8
4
2
20
5
8
11
5
10
0
6
15
6
17
25
60
29
24
106
20
150
37
44
41
44
14
12
6
11
83
69
80
70
11
10
16
10
3
14
3
13
3
8
2
7
0
0
0
0
17
31
20
30
35
810
64
909
42
38
50
39
1
4
10
4
78
68
83
70
3
1
0
1
16
19
13
18
1
8
3
7
1
4
0
4
22
32
17
30
74
616
30
720
Note: IOCCS ¼ indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline silicate; rettls ¼ retouched tools.
476
Table 12
High- vs. low-quality raw material use in the Kibish MSA assemblages
Site
assemblage
Tool group
High-quality
raw material
Low-quality
raw material
KHS
Whole flakes and
proximal fragments
Cores
Flakes/cores
79
27
20
4
4
7
Whole flakes and
proximal fragments
Cores
Flakes/cores
556
254
29
19
6
42
Whole flakes and
proximal fragments
Cores
Flakes/cores
421
195
58
7
16
12
Table 14
Variation in core volume (cm3) for technological core types in the Kibish MSA
assemblages
Core type
Mean
Median
SD
n
Pebble cores
Formal cores
Core-on-flakes
Other
117.2
20.8
9.5
16.9
34.6
14.8
8.0
16.9
195.1
16.13
4.4
14.7
12
45
3
2
AHS
a core than one with a lower FSA/T value. Thus, FSA/T serves as
a measure of the success of flake production.
The ratio SPW/T expresses the lateral extent of a striking platform relative to the distance between the point of fracture initiation
and the dorsal surface of the flake using the following formula:
BNS
striking platform width=striking platform thickness:
Note: High-quality raw material ¼ jasper, chalcedony, chert, IOCCS (indeterminate/
other cryptocrystalline silicate); low-quality raw material ¼ rhyolite, basalt, indeterminate volcanic.
the Kibish MSA cores start their ‘‘use-lives’’ as small clasts that
present little ‘‘payoff’’ (i.e., few useful flakes) for efforts to
rejuvenate them.
The efficiency of flake production is an important dimension of
lithic technological organization. Leroi-Gourhan (1964) originally
proposed that the yield of cutting edge per unit of lithic raw
material increased steadily over the course of the Paleolithic. As
much as 90,000 years may separate the Kibish Member I sitesdKHS
and AHS (ca. 195 ka)dfrom BNS (ca. 104 ka). Comparing measurements of flake production efficiency may shed light on diachronic
trends in the Kibish MSA technological strategies. Flake production
efficiency can be estimated for the Kibish MSA assemblages by
comparing the values of two ratios calculated from flake
measurements, flake surface area/flake thickness ratio (FSA/T) and
the striking platform width/striking platform thickness ratio (SPW/
T) (Dibble, 1997). The ratio FSA/T expresses the horizontal extent of
a flake relative to its thickness as follows:
Controlled experiments show that striking platform thickness has
a significant effect on the size of hard-hammer flakes (Pelcin, 1997;
Shott et al., 2000). Striking platform width has relatively little effect
on flake size. Because relatively wider platforms remove portions of
core surface that could theoretically be used as platforms for additional flake removals, flakes with higher SPW/T ratios are more
‘‘costly’’ per unit of potential utility (FSA/T) than flakes with lower
SPW/T ratios. Table 16 presents summary statistics of FSA/T and
SPW/T variation for the Omo Kibish assemblages. These data were
calculated on whole flakes longer than 30 mm in each Kibish MSA
assemblage. The values of SPW/T do not differ significantly among
the KHS, AHS, and BNS assemblages (ANOVA, F ¼ 1.24, p ¼ 0.29), but
the values of FSA/T do (ANOVA, F ¼ 5.81, p ¼ 0.003). Contrasts between FSA/T values of BNS on the one hand and a ‘‘pooled’’ sample
of the two Member I assemblages (AHS and KHS) are even more
significant (ANOVA, F ¼ 9.41, p ¼ 0.002). The BNS assemblage exhibits essentially the same values for the ‘‘cost’’ of lithic production
as the KHS and AHS assemblages but lower values for the ‘‘benefit’’dcutting edge per unit of stone. These data suggest that there
was no overall increase in flake production efficiency in the MSA of
the Kibish Formation between 195 ka and 104 ka.
ðtechnological length midpoint widthÞ=midpoint thickness:
Retouched tool technology
All other things being equal, a flake with a higher FSA/T value is one
that has more successfully recovered potential cutting edge from
Retouched tools are a minor component of the Kibish MSA
assemblages, accounting for slightly more than 4% of all nondebris
artifacts recovered from KHS, AHS, and BNS. The most common
retouched tool types are simple sidescrapers, followed by foliate
points and foliate point fragments (Table 17). If one were to treat
the various scraper types together with notches and denticulates as
a single larger ‘‘unifacially retouched flake’’ category, this would
account for nearly half (43%) of the retouched tools from the Kibish
MSA assemblages.
Retouched tools of the same morphological tool type can differ
in the extent to which they are retouched. A rough estimate of
retouch extent can be made by counting the number of eight polar
coordinates about the tool’s circumference that were retouched
and calculating the corresponding percentage of the tool’s circumference. Table 17 also presents a summary of the polar-coordinate counts for the different retouched tool types in the Kibish
MSA assemblages. Retouched flake tools in the Kibish MSA assemblages are not extensively retouched. The mean values for the
sum of polar coordinates differ among the Kibish MSA assemblages: KHS ¼ 3, AHS ¼ 4 (for both Levels 1–5 and Levels ¼ 6–8),
and BNS ¼ 5. By this measure, retouch is somewhat more extensive
at BNS than in the other assemblages. Only 32 (43%) of the
retouched tools from Kibish MSA assemblages are retouched on
more than half of their circumference. To the extent retouch can be
Table 13
Core type variation in the Kibish MSA assemblages
Core type
Unifacial chopper
Bifacial chopper
Partial discoid
Discoid
Core scraper
Polyhedron
Levallois core
Core on flake
Other core type
Core fragment
KHS (n)
AHS 1–5 (n)
AHS 6–8 (n)
1
2
BNS (n)
5
4
2
1
1
1
10
4
1
2
6
1
7
1
37
8
2
2
15
4
3
Total
24
3
19
74
Pebble cores
Formal cores
Cores on flakes
Other core types
5
11
0
2
2
1
0
0
4
7
0
1
9
45
2
2
0.5
1.8
Formal cores/pebble cores
2.2
5.0
477
Table 15
Debitage type variation in the Kibish MSA assemblages
Flake types
KHS
AHS 1–5
n
Cobble fragment
Levallois flake
Levallois blade
Levallois point
Atypical Levallois flake
Atypical Levallois blade
Atypical Levallois point
Kombewa flake
Blade
Noncortical flake
Biface-thinning flake
Blocky fragment
Flakes subtotal
Technical operation
Core preparation 1–3
Core exploitation 4–14, 16
Core rejuvenation 15
Subtotal
%
3
19
25
10
2
AHS 6–8
n
2.1
13.0
17.1
6.8
1.4
%
n
8
13
7
3.6
5.8
3.1
1
0.4
14
35
41
15
2.3
5.8
6.8
2.5
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.8
0.2
0.2
18.9
0.2
3.2
17.3
36.7
1.5
100.0
24
71
5
100
5
3.4
10
1
4.4
0.4
13
8.9
48
21.3
6
22
40
1
146
4.1
15.1
27.4
0.7
100.0
1
46
85
5
225
0.4
20.4
37.8
2.2
100.00
6
2
1
1
17
1
1
114
1
19
104
221
9
602
47
52
6
105
45
50
6
100
21
113
1
135
16
84
1
100
90
263
19
372
equated with either tool modification for use or resharpening
during use, this evidence suggests that neither of these factors
played a major role in the technological strategies of the Kibish MSA
humans.
Comparing the FSA/T values for the measured flakes to those of
retouched flake tools from the same assemblage provides a second,
independent measure of retouch intensity (Table 18). The greater
the difference, the more intensively the retouched flakes, as
a group, have been retouched. The mean FSA/T values for retouched
flake tools are in each case significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than
those for the unretouched flakes in the same assemblages. This, not
surprisingly, suggests that retouched flake tools possessed relatively less potential utility when they were discarded than
unretouched flakes in the same assemblage.
A discussion of retouched tools is an appropriate place to
comment on possible evidence for hafting among the Kibish
assemblages. Ambrose (2001) argued that hafting technology was
an emergent feature of the African MSA (see also Leakey, 1954: 60;
BNS
%
n
%
61
101
122
30
1
2
1
1
19
1
3
112
2
60
84
204
16
820
7.4
12.3
14.9
3.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.4
13.7
0.2
7.3
10.2
24.9
2.0
100.0
284
256
60
600
47
43
10
100
Clark, 1988: 298). The tangs on North African Aterian points,
backing of geometric microliths in the South African Howiesons
Poort Industry, and bifacial points from various South African Still
Bay assemblages point unambiguously to MSA hafting technology
(Clark, 1988: 298; Shea, 1997; Lombard, 2005; Minichillo, 2005).
Probably the strongest evidence for hafting in the Kibish assemblages consists of two points from BNS (Fig. 22a,b) that have had
their bulbar eminence removed by invasive retouch. Such retouch
might have made it easier to insert these points into slotted handles. Stone tools do not have to be retouched in order to be hafted,
but hafting creates incentives for standardized tool designs (Keeley,
1982). The Kibish evidence does not contraindicate the presence of
hafting technology. Rather, the scarcity of clear hafting-related
modifications among the Kibish MSA stone tools could signal that
hafting was not a sufficiently regular component of the Kibish
humans’ technological strategy for it to have encouraged the
production of standardized tool forms.
Overview of the Kibish MSA industry
25
n cores
20
BNS
AHS
KHS
The principal shared features of the Omo Kibish MSA assemblages include the following characteristics:
(1) Stone tools are made from pebble- and cobble-sized clasts
procured from (probably local) gravel deposits.
15
10
Table 16
FSA/T and SPW/T variation in the Kibish MSA assemblages
Ratio
5
Site
KHS
AHS
BNS
Mean
SD
171.4
109.0
201.0
98.2
159.6
54.3
Mean
SD
3.4
1.5
22
4.1
2.1
144
3.9
1.8
76
FSA/T
0
<10
11-50
51-100
101-500
>500
SPW/T
Core volume (cm3)
Fig. 26. Histogram of core volume.
n
478
Table 17
Retouched tool type variation in the Kibish MSA assemblages
KHS
Retouched tool type
Point/triangular flake
Sidescraper
Double scraper
Convergent sidescraper
Transverse scraper
Awl
Backed knife
Notch
Denticulate
Bipolar flake
Foliate point fragment
Handaxe
Column total
Circumference retouched
13%
25%
38%
50%
63%
75%
88%
100%
Mean
1
4
AHS
BNS
2
13
5
4
2
1
1
1
6
4
2
3
6
1
12
9
1
64
1
3
1
4
4
1
20
2
7
6
6
2
8
30
2
11
3
14
5
9
3
6
4
1
1
1
3
Total
1
1
3
3
1
5
3
21
7
2
7
5
11
4
10
7
18
17
2
114
(10)
4
19
3
16
8
13
3
8
4
(14)
(2) Clasts composed of high-quality (i.e., fine-grained, homogeneous, and highly siliceous) rocks, such as chert, jasper, and
chalcedony, are more heavily reduced than those of lowerquality rocks, such as shale, rhyolite, and basalt.
(3) Core surface preparation is primarily unidirectional-parallel
during decortication, changing to primarily discoidal and
radial/centripetal in later phases of core exploitation.
(4) The final forms of cores are predominantly formal (i.e.,
Levallois cores or asymmetrical discoids). This evidence could
indicate a technological strategy responding to the need for
standardized tool forms in the context of high residential
mobility (Parry and Kelly, 1987).
(5) Relatively little effort was expended on core rejuvenation,
possibly because of small initial raw material size. Many ‘‘coretrimming elements’’ are actually plunging flakes that might
more appropriately be called ‘‘core-terminating elements.’’
(6) A preponderance of small cores suggests relatively high
thresholds for core discard. This could equally well reflect
either small initial raw material size or intense curation of
cores by transport, or both.
(7) Large numbers of cortical flakes among all assemblages
suggest that core preparation occurred on site. Whether this
was near or far from the point of raw material procurement
remains unknown.
(8) Among debitage products referable to core exploitation,
Levallois flakes and pseudo-Levallois points are especially
common.
(9) Refitting sets of artifacts typically reflect core preparation, core
exploitation, core rejuvenation, or pairs of these three technological operations (mostly preparation and exploitation). No
Table 18
Mean FSA/T values for unretouched flakes and retouched flake tools in the Kibish
MSA assemblages
Unretouched flakes
Difference
KHS
AHS
BNS
Grand total
171.0
165.3
5.7
201.0
138.2
62.8
159.0
60.0
99.0
185.3
134.4
50.9
(11)
(12)
(13)
(15)
refitting sets feature evidence for all three technological operations. This segmentation of lithic reduction sequences is
consistent with inferred patterns of high residential mobility
and the curation of cores by transport.
Quantitative measures of flake production efficiency (i.e., FSA/
T and SPW/T) have relatively low values, suggesting little effort
was made to either conserve core utility or to optimize the
recovery of cutting edge (Shea et al., 2007).
Unifacially retouched flakes (scrapers, notches, denticulates)
dominate the retouched tool population.
Bifacially retouched tools (foliate points, lanceolates, and
handaxes) are rare, mainly found as either isolated surface
finds or fragmentary artifacts in excavated assemblages.
Prismatic blades and so-called ‘‘Upper Paleolithic/Later Stone
Age’’ retouched tool types (endscrapers, backed knives, and
burins) are rare and backed pieces/geometric microliths are
absent.
Retouched tools occur in a wide range of sizes without
apparent morphological standardization.
Larger core-tools, such as handaxes, picks, and core-axes, are
present, but they are rare in excavated assemblages. They are
more prominent as isolated surface finds.
Although the particular manifestations of these characteristics
vary among the Kibish MSA assemblages, they are sufficiently
consistent to reinforce a picture of overall technological and typological unity. It therefore seems convenient to refer to these
assemblages collectively as a technological single entity, the Kibish
Industry. Several lines of evidence point towards the Kibish Industry
reflecting a technological strategy responding to the needs of high
residential mobility. On the other hand, tools modified for hafting
and bifacially retouched tools, which are often linked to theoretical
models of high-mobility technological strategies are conspicuously
rare. That the Kibish MSA does not fit one or another of the
archaeological theoretical archetypes of either high or low mobility
is not altogether surprising. The actual technological strategies of
the Omo Kibish humans were probably compromises between
contradictory imperatives of mobility and sedentism, curation and
expedience, functional and cultural factors, and other situational
variables that we can only dimly view in a small number of
archaeological assemblages.
Comparison with other east African MSA assemblages
It is not easy to place the Kibish Industry in the larger MSA of
eastern Africa. Unlike northern Africa and southern Africa, whose
MSA records preserve regional horizon-wide turnovers in named
industries, the MSA of eastern Africa instead features a complex
mosaic of local industries and industrial sequences (Clark, 1988).
There is no single overarching regional culture-historical framework for the eastern African MSA. Situating the Kibish MSA in its
regional context therefore requires site-by-site comparisons
between the Kibish Industry and MSA sites in Ethiopia, Kenya, and
adjacent countries (Fig. 27).
The nearest and best-dated MSA contexts are those from the
Gademotta and Kulkuletti site complex (Wendorf and Schild, 1974).
Gademotta and Kulkuletti are open-air sites (really elongated
trenches cutting across numerous individual MSA levels) on the
slopes above the western shore of Lake Ziway, in the Central Rift
Valley of Ethiopia. Radiopotassium dates of 140 ka to 230 ka have
been obtained for early MSA contexts at Gademotta (Wendorf et al.,
1975). The principal source of raw materials at these sites is a series
of nearby obsidian flows. The Gademotta/Kulkuletti assemblages
have several obvious points of similarity with the Kibish Industry.
Heavy cutting tools (i.e., handaxes, lanceolates) are rare, and there
Sudan
Eritrea
Red
Sea
479
Yemen
Gulf of Aden
Gorgora
Middle Awash
(Herto, Aduma)
Porc Epic
Melka Kunturé-Garba III
Koné
Gademotta & Kulkuletti
Hargesia
Ethiopia
Omo Kibish
East Turkana
Somalia
Kenya
Indian Ocean
Muguruk
Prospect Farm
0
500
1000 KM
Fig. 27. Map of east Africa showing location of MSA sites discussed in the text.
are both large and small Levallois cores and flakes. The main points
of difference appear to revolve around points, both retouched
triangular flakes (retouched Levallois points, Mousterian points,
convergent sidescrapers) and foliate points. These tools are more
prominent components of the Gademotta/Kulkuletti assemblages
than they are in the Kibish Industry. The technique of resharpening
the distal tips of points through the use of tranchet and burin
blowsdclearly apparent at Gademotta/Kulkuletti (Wendorf and
Schild, 1993)dis not present among the Kibish assemblages.
The Middle Awash Valley in northeastern Ethiopia also has an
archaeological record of roughly the same age and with many
parallels to the Kibish Industry. Clark et al. (2003) recently
described lithic assemblages associated with early H. sapiens fossils in the Upper Herto Member, Bouri Formation. These assemblages date to 154–160 ka and are composed of tools from
controlled surface collections and excavations. The most obvious
points of similarity with the Kibish Industry are the presence of
handaxes and picks as well as a prominent Levallois component,
the latter with common radial/centripetal preparation. Similarities
with the Kibish Industry are stronger still for assemblages of the
Aduma Industry, found in the Ardu Beds, several kilometers north
of Herto in the Middle Awash Valley (Yellen et al., 2005). The
Aduma Industry assemblages from Ardu B date to around 90 ka on
the basis of U-series and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
dates. They possess many of the same features as the Upper Herto
assemblages (large cutting tools, prominent Levallois core-reduction technology). They also feature retouched triangular points,
foliate bifacial points and small, asymmetrical discoidal cores and
Levallois cores like those seen in the Kibish assemblages. The few
clear differences between the Aduma and Kibish industries probably reflect raw-material variation. Large clasts of volcanic rock
and obsidian are readily available at Aduma but rare in the Kibish
Formation.
Porc Epic Cave is a third dated Ethiopian site with parallels to
Omo Kibish. Porc Epic is located near Dire Dawa (southern Afar
Rift). Obsidian hydration dates the MSA levels of this site to at least
60–77 ka (Breuil et al., 1951; Clark et al., 1984). Assefa (2002)
described the zooarchaeological assemblage, while Pleurdeau
(2003, 2005) described the Porc Epic MSA lithic assemblage. This
assemblage features a prominent Levallois component (42% of
cores) and a rich series of retouched triangular flakes and foliate
points. Some of these points have close counterparts among the
Kibish Industry, though these are mainly surface finds. Burins are
common at Porc Epic, though the burin/tranchet technique seen at
Gademotta/Kulkuletti does not appear to have been used to
resharpen point tips there. Heavy bifacial cutting tools are rare. The
backed pieces (piéce a dos abbatu) reported by Pleurdeau have no
exact parallel among the backed knives from Kibish. Like Gademotta/Kulkuletti, large triangular Levallois flakes appear to have
been selected for use as blanks for the production of foliate points.
Such a mode of selection is not clear among the Kibish assemblages,
owing mainly to small sample size.
Taken together, the evidence from Omo Kibish, Gademotta/
Kulkuletti, the Middle Awash, and Porc Epic suggest the possibility
of early H. sapiens populations practicing relatively similar technological strategies throughout a considerable part of southern and
central Ethiopia between 80 ka and 200 ka. There are additional
undated sites from Ethiopia and adjacent countries that hint at
480
more widespread ‘‘connections’’ among northeast African MSA
industries, but their uncertain geochronology limits what one can
infer from comparisons.
In geographic terms, the nearest MSA sites to Omo Kibish are
six MSA localities from East Turkana reported by Kelly and Harris
(1992; Kelly, 1996). Like the Kibish assemblages, the East Turkana
MSA assemblages represent a mix of high- and low-quality
materials, with an emphasis on the reduction of the former. Small
Levallois cores and retouched triangular flakes are present, but
foliate bifaces appear to be absent. Some of the similarities
between the East Turkana MSA assemblages and those from Omo
Kibish reflect the common use of small pebbles in both areas. The
kinds of large cutting tools (picks, handaxes, lanceolates)
occasionally seen in Omo Kibish are not reported from the East
Turkana sites.
Koné is an open-air workshop site located inside a caldera in
the southwest corner of the Afar Rift (Kurashina, 1978). The site is
undated, but its lithic assemblage is reported to be techno-typologically similar to that of Gademotta/Kulkuletti (Clark, 1988:
260). Levallois points were a significant focus of tool production
at Koné. Koné and the Kibish sites share rare evidence of bifacial
retouch on flakes and foliate bifaces. Their most important point
of similarity is the use of truncated flakes as cores and, on the
basis of tools illustrated by Clark (1988: 259), the production of
asymmetrical discoids. The complex Nubian-technique of Levallois point production seen at Koné is not seen among the Kibish
assemblages.
Gorgora Rockshelter is located on the northern shore of Lake
Tana. This site, which was excavated in the 1940s (Moysey, 1943),
contains a 2 m-deep sequence of MSA assemblages. Many of the
‘‘waste flakes’’ from this site contain a facetted striking platform,
suggesting a significant Levallois component. Bifacial foliates are
prominent among the retouched tool component (Leakey, 1943). Of
these points, many of the shorter ones appear similar to those from
the Kibish Industry. Backed pieces like those from Porc Epic were
also recovered from Gorgora, but the relatively uncontrolled nature
of the excavations at this site leaves doubt about their association
with the other MSA artifacts.
The site of Garba III at Melka Kunturé contains MSA assemblages
in alluvial sediments of uncertain age. The earliest of these
assemblages feature small triangular and cordiform handaxes and
foliate bifaces. As in the Kibish assemblages, endscrapers and
burins are rare, and Levallois flakes represent a small proportion of
all debitage (Hours, 1976).
The Muguruk in western Kenya preserves a sequence of
assemblages spanning the Sangoan-Lupemban/MSA transition
(McBrearty, 1981). The assemblages from Muguruk are organized
into an earlier Ojolla Industry and a later Pundo Makwar Industry.
The Ojolla Industry differs significantly from the Kibish Industry in
retaining a prominent heavy bifacial cutting tool component and
relatively rare Levallois debitage. The Pundo Makwar Industry
shares many of the same key features as the Kibish Industry. These
features include a prominent Levallois debitage component,
relatively few biface-thinning flakes, small foliate bifaces, and
predominantly radial/centripetal core preparation.
Small foliate points and convergently retouched triangular
flakes such as those seen among the Kibish assemblages also have
parallels among the obsidian artifacts from Prospect Farm in
western Kenya (Anthony, 1978). The numerous thinned and elongated foliate bifaces found primarily on the surface and eroding
from the top of Kibish Member III have obvious points of similarity
with artifacts from Hargesia, Somalia (Clark, 1954), and, indeed
with similar Lupemban artifacts from contexts throughout equatorial Africa. At this juncture, however, the relatively rudimentary
state of lithic typology for the MSA in eastern Africa makes further
evaluation of these similarities problematical.
The Kibish Industry and most of the east African MSA assemblages described above share the following key features:
(1) Large core-tools (handaxes, picks, core-axes, and lanceolates)
are present but relatively rare. Such symmetrical bifaces tend to
be relatively small and triangular, ovate, or cordiform in shape.
(2) Levallois debitage is present in all assemblages. Radial/
centripetal Levallois core-preparation seems to have been
a common technique, but most estimates are based on counts
of cores rather than analysis of scar patterns on the dorsal
surfaces of flakes.
(3) Discoidal core reduction is also present in most assemblages.
(4) Foliate bifacial points are present in many assemblages,
although their frequency varies.
(5) There is little evidence for the systematic production of
geometric backed pieces. Such backed pieces are known from
sites not much further south than those discussed here,
including Mumba Cave in Tanzania (Mehlman, 1989) and
Enkape Ya Muto in the southern Kenya (Ambrose, 2002).
The MSA assemblages from Omo Kibish Members I–III appear to
be a local variant of a larger, as yet unnamed, east African MSA
industrial complex (Brandt, 1986; Clark, 1988). There appear to be
strong typological similarities among east African MSA assemblages spanning the period from ca. 140–230 ka (at Omo Kibish
Member I and Gademotta/Kulkuletti) to at least ca. 80–100 ka (at
Omo Kibish Member III, Aduma Ardu B, and Porc Epic). Such similarities could indicate a significant degree of cultural continuity
and perhaps demographic stability in this region. Although one is
rightly skeptical about equating similarities among stone tool
industries with biological continuities among their makers (Clark
and Riel-Salvatore, 2005), there are reasons apart from those
involving assumptions about the sources of lithic industrial variation that suggest that there may have been such continuity.
High topographic relief insulates eastern Africa (or rather,
microregions within eastern Africa) from wide climate change to
a somewhat greater degree than northern or southern Africa
(Hamilton, 1982; Littmann, 1989). During arid phases of the middle–late Pleistocene climate, such topographic variation may have
created hospitable refugia for human populations within eastern
Africa (Brandt, 2006). The Red Sea coast of Eritrea, for example,
featured freshwater ‘‘oases’’ at times of lowered sea level and
inland desertification (Faure et al., 2002; Bruggemann et al., 2004).
The woodlands lining the Omo River may have been a similar such
refugium during arid periods, though probably more episodically
than for prolonged periods. Techno-typological continuities among
east African MSA assemblages may reflect the isolation, persistence, and periodic dispersals of early H. sapiens populations within
this region. This hypothesis clearly needs further substantiation
from paleoclimatic studies within east Africa and from more
detailed analysis of east African MSA assemblages, as well as concerted efforts to date more of them. If this hypothesis is supported
by research, increased understanding of the sources of behavioral
variability reflected in the east African MSA will shed considerable
light on the origin and initial adaptive radiation of H. sapiens.
Conclusions
Since the discovery of the Omo Kibish fossils more than thirty
years ago, little has been known about their archaeological associations. This paper has reported what we have recently learned about
the archaeological context of these fossils. There remains much more
that can be done in the Lower Omo Valley, both in terms of geochronology, fossil prospection, and archaeology, but for the present,
the paleoanthropological evidence from the Omo Kibish formation
contributes to research on the origins of H. sapiens in Africa.
The Omo Kibish fossils and their archaeological associations
suggest that skeletally modern-looking H. sapiens were present in
eastern Africa by at least 195 ka. We do not know if our species
emerged in this region from local precursors or if it is descended
from populations who migrated from elsewhere (Bräuer, 1992). The
retention of archaic morphology among the Herto fossil sample and
Omo II suggests such a local origin (White et al., 2003). One could
also cite techno-typological continuities in this region across the
Acheulean MSA ‘‘transition’’ as further support for such a regionalcontinuity hypothesis (Brandt, 1986; McBrearty, 2003). Typological
similarities between the Kibish Industry, the Aduma Industry, and
other dated MSA assemblages from Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and
Kenya suggest that the MSA of eastern Africa shows a mosaic
pattern of variation through time and space. This mosaic pattern
contrasts with the kinds of sharp breaks and horizon-wide transformations of the MSA record elsewhere in Africa (Clark, 1984,
1988). Whether this mosaic pattern of industrial variability in
eastern Africa is real, and perhaps a reflection of evolutionarily
stable adaptations among early populations of H. sapiens, or if it is
instead an illusion created by a relatively coarse-grained archaeological record, can only be revealed by further research.
It is tempting to close this paper with an assessment of what the
MSA evidence suggests about the ‘‘behavioral modernity’’ of the
Omo Kibish humans. It is a temptation worth resisting. The criteria
for recognizing behavioral modernity in the archaeological record
are in one way or another ultimately derived from what are perceived as the emergent behavioral features of the European Upper
Paleolithic (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). The use of these traits reflects three historically contingent facts: (1) the behaviors in question are associated with the
first H. sapiens populations in Europe; (2) Paleolithic archaeology
began earlier in Europe than in other parts of the Old World; (3) the
European Paleolithic record was used (and continues to be used) as
a model for Paleolithic cultural succession in other regions. Thus,
the ‘‘standard’’ for human behavioral modernity is what H. sapiens
populations were doing when they dispersed into Europe after 45
ka. It should surprise no one that African MSA humans come up
short in an assessment of their modernity that cross-cuts significant evolutionary time and space. The MSA Africans weren’t Upper
Paleolithic Europeans. Socrates would rate poorly compared to the
dimmest twenty-first-century college student if the standards for
‘‘behavioral modernity’’ were recently derived features of North
American material culture. Such comparisons move us very little
towards understanding behavioral differences among prehistoric
humans if we do not have robust models for the cognitive, social,
and ecological sources of their strategic variability.
Paleoanthropological research at Omo Kibishdas well as elsewhere in Africa and the Near Eastdis making it increasingly clear
that there was a long period, perhaps 200–40 ka, during which the
residues of H. sapiens adaptive strategies differed significantly from
those of humans who lived after this period. The nature of contrasting patterns of human behavior before and after ca. 40 ka is
one of the most intensely researched and debated topics in Paleolithic archaeology (Klein, 1992, 2000; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000;
Bar-Yosef, 2002; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; Mellars, 2006;
Stiner and Kuhn, 2006; Zilhão, 2006). Far less research has been
directed at human behavioral variability before the so-called
‘‘human revolution’’ of 50–30 ka. Understanding what these earlier
Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age H. sapiens populations were
doing between 250 ka and 50 ka, as well as the nature and stability
of their adaptations, will only advance to the degree that we also
understand the sources of their strategic ecological and behavioral
variability.
Improved knowledge about the archaeological contexts for early
human fossils is an important step towards such an improved
understanding of the behavioral variability of early H. sapiens. It is
481
simply not credible to try to assess the behavioral variability of
human populations distributed on a continental scale over
hundreds of thousands of years with evidence from one site, or
even a small number of sites in the same region. We need far more
well-dated and well-documented archaeological sites than are
presently available to even begin to frame the broad outlines of
such an assessment.
For nearly thirty years, there was little that could be said with
confidence about either the age or the behavior of the Omo Kibish
humans. We now know they lived around 195 ka and that their
adaptations were similar to those of roughly contemporaneous
humans living in at least the northern part of eastern Africa at 250–
50 ka. Recent studies of genetic and linguistic variation increasingly
point to this part of Africa as a likely region for the origin and initial
dispersal of our species (Lahr and Foley, 1994; Tishkoff and Verrelli,
2003). There is much to be gained by improved understanding of
these fossils’ archaeological and geological contexts. It is hoped that
the archaeological research in the Lower Omo Valley Kibish Formation reported here will inspire others to carry out similar research on archaeological contexts of the many other early H. sapiens
fossils about which we currently know so little.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to my colleagues John Fleagle, Frank Brown, Zelalem Assefa, Craig Feibel, Ian McDougall, Chad Fuller, Adam Jagich,
Larry Bender, Josh Trapani, Mark Miller, Ababao Ajigu, Menase
Girma, and Awoke Amzaye for their assistance in the field. I thank
the Government of Ethiopia; Ministry of Youth, Sports, and Culture;
the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage;
and the National Museum of Ethiopia for permission to conduct
research at Omo Kibish. I also thank Richard Leakey, the late Paul
Abell, and the staff of the Archaeology and Archives Departments,
National Museums of Kenya for their help in studying the collections from the 1967 Kenyan Expedition to the Omo Valley. Support
for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation,
the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, and
Stony Brook University. I also thank the Bumi people of Kibish and
the Shiarongoro Mursi for their hospitality and assistance. The
preparation of this manuscript profited from discussions with
numerous colleagues at a workshop organized by Alison Brooks on
the east African MSA that was held in Nairobi and Addis Ababa in
July 2005. Steve Brandt, Christian Tryon, and John Yellen provided
helpful criticism of an earlier draft of this paper. Any remaining
errors are my own.
Appendix. Lithic analysis framework
There is no single standardized typology for the east African
MSA comparable to that used in Europe, western Asia, and North
Africa (i.e., Bordes, 1961; Geneste, 1985; Debénath and Dibble,
1994). This appendix describes the classifications and measurements used in the analysis of the Omo Kibish MSA assemblages. The
artifact-types and measurements recorded by this study are
‘‘standard’’ ones in broad use among Paleolithic researchers.
Raw materials
Raw material color/texture was recorded for all artifacts except
the debris from AHS (a decision reflecting limited time and lab
space). All identifications were made by the author based on visual
inspection. The following list summarizes the major rock types:
Jasperdfine-grained, brightly lustrous, usually bright red or
bright yellow.
482
Chalcedonydwhite or pale yellow with varying degrees of
translucency.
Chertdgenerally highly siliceous, but opaque. Color varies
widely across a spectrum from green to tan to light brown and
dark brown. (One particular variety of dark-brown chert may be
fossil wood, but petrographic study would be needed to confirm
this identification.)
Shaledgenerally pink, dark green, or black, with a matte luster.
(The pink shale is noticeably less siliceous than the others and
may instead actually be some kind of silicified mudstone.)
Rhyolitedwidely variable in color (mostly shades of gray) with
wide variation in the visibility of flow-banding and phenocrysts.
Rhyolites used for stone tool production are significantly more
fine-grained and less phenocrystic than the more common
rhyolites in the Kibish Member I gravels.
Basaltdmostly nonvesicular and either dark gray or green in
color. Again, this contrasts with the more common coarsegrained and vesicular basalts in local gravel deposits.
Indeterminate/other cryptocrystalline silicatedthis category
includes rare pieces of quartz, quartzite, opal silica, and a small
number of indeterminate raw materials.
Indeterminate volcanicdthis category encompasses a small
number of rock types that were clearly volcanic in nature but
not conclusively identifiable as rhyolite or basalt.
In addition to these basic rock type identifications, each rock
was also characterized by an assessment of its color and texture.
Unfortunately, color/texture proved so widely variable for each rock
type that paired rock-type and color/texture values resulted in
hundreds of raw material taxa. In the interest of brevity only rock
type identifications are discussed in this report.
Artifact classification
Flaked stone artifacts were divided into five main artifact
categories, cores, debitage (flakes), debris, retouched tools, and
hammerstones. More specific classifications and measurements
differed among these artifact categories. Each is discussed below.
All artifact measurements were made in millimeters using digital
calipers. Classifications and measurements were recorded by hand
in the field and later transcribed into an electronic database.
Representative samples of artifacts were sketched in the field by
the author. A selection of these sketches, inked by the author,
accompanies this report.
Cores/flaked pieces
Cores include most of the artifacts from which flakes longer than
1 cm have been struck. (Handaxes, foliate points, and other large
cutting tools were treated as retouched tools. See discussion
below.) Cores from the Kibish MSA assemblages were classified in
terms of the following artifact-types:
Unifacial chopperda pebble core that has a single continuous
series of flake scars aligned in the same direction along one
portion of its circumference.
Bifacial chopperda pebble core that has two series of continuous
flake scars detached on opposite faces of the same portion of its
circumference, but not for more than 50% of its circumference.
Partial discoidda pebble core that has bifacial flake scars on
more than 50% of its circumference.
Discoidda pebble core, roughly circular in planform aspect and
lenticular cross section, whose entire circumference has bifacial
flake scars, but whose flake scars do not extend past the midpoint of the core.
Core scraperdessentially a discoid with one flat, noncortical
surface and another highly convex surface covered by flake scars.
Polyhedronda pebble core with more than one discrete series of
bifacial and/or unifacial flake scars.
Asymmetrical discoidda core on which invasive flake removals
are predominantly on one side and platform preparation flake
scars are on the other. Flake scars on the former surface do not
generally extend beyond the midpoint of the core surface. Usually, there is a residual cortical surface at the center of the less
invasively flaked surface. Yellen et al. (2005) coined the term
‘‘Aduma cores’’ for similar artifacts from the Middle Awash Valley.
Levallois coredcores with a hierarchy of flake removal surfaces,
a flake removal surface on which flake scars extend past the
midpoint of the core, and a platform preparation surface with
less invasive flake scars.
Core-on-flakeda flake that has a flake detachment scar longer
than 30 mm somewhere on its surface and no other sign of
edge-modification or retouch.
Other core typedthis category encompasses cores that do not fit
into one of the above categories (e.g., pebbles with a single flake
removal, prismatic blade cores). (Note: Handaxes in the Kibish
assemblages are treated as retouched tools.)
Core fragmentdfragment of a pebble, flake, or angular rock
fragment with visible flake scars greater than 20 mm, but for
which no precise typological assignment could be made.
The principal measurements made on cores included the
following:
Lengthdthe core’s longest dimension.
Widthdthe longest dimension perpendicular to length.
Thicknessdthe distance between the upper and lower surfaces
of the core measured at the intersection of length and width and
perpendicular to the plane defined by the length and width
dimensions.
Debitage/unretouched flakes and flake fragments
Debitage includes all unretouched flakes and flake fragments
larger than 1 cm. The debitage types recognized by this study
include the following:
Cobble fragmentdhemispherical fragment of a cobble or pebble
split by a shear fracture.
Initial cortical flakedflake with more than half of its dorsal
surface covered by cortex.
Residual cortical flakedflake with less than half of its dorsal
surface covered by cortex.
Levallois flakedsymmetrical, noncortical flake with facetted and
projecting striking platform.
Levallois bladedsymmetrical, noncortical blade (an elongated
rectangular flake) with facetted and projecting striking
platform.
Levallois pointdsymmetrical, noncortical triangular flake with
facetted and projecting striking platform.
Atypical Levallois flakedasymmetrical, noncortical, or partly
cortical flake with facetted and projecting striking platform.
Atypical Levallois bladedasymmetrical, noncortical, or partly
cortical blade with facetted and projecting striking platform.
Atypical Levallois pointdasymmetrical, noncortical, or partly
cortical triangular flake with facetted and projecting striking
platform.
Pseudo-Levallois pointdtriangular or trapezoidal flake with
facetted striking platform and whose technological and
morphological long axes diverge from each other.
Kombewa flakeda flake whose dorsal surface preserves the former
ventral bulbar surface of the flake/core from which it was struck.
Prismatic bladedflakes whose length is at least twice that of
their width, which feature parallel lateral edges and distal–
proximally aligned dorsal flake scars.
Noncortical flakedany non-Levallois, noncortical flake longer
than 30 mm in any dimension and not subsumed by other
debitage types.
Biface-thinning flakeda flake with a facetted striking platform,
low external platform-dorsal surface angle, and multidirectional
flake scars on its dorsal surface.
Core-trimming elementdflakes whose lateral or distal edges
contain substantial amounts of residual core edge (i.e., for more
than one third of the flake’s circumference).
Flake fragment, proximaldincomplete flake retaining the striking platform and bulbar eminence.
Flake fragment, otherdincomplete flake lacking the striking
platform and/or bulbar eminence. More specific notations about
the kind of flake fragment (distal, medial, lateral, etc.) were
noted in cataloging Kibish MSA artifacts, but this aspect of flakefragment variation is not explored in this analysis.
Blocky fragmentdangular flake fragment that cannot be
definitively assigned to a flake fragment subtype.
Five metric variables were measured on all whole flakes longer
than 30 mm. These measurements, based on definitions in Dibble
(1997), were selected because they can be related to cost/benefit
models of lithic production strategies (see text).
Values for the following variables were measured on all whole
flakes from the Kibish MSA assemblages longer than 30 mm:
483
Transverse scraperdflake with invasive retouch on its distal edge.
Awldflake with sharp projection formed by two sets of concave
flake removals.
Backed knifedblade or elongated flake with steep/noninvasive
retouch along only one of its lateral edges.
Notchdflake with either a single or a small cluster of flake
removals creating a marked concavity on its edge.
Denticulatedflake with a series of deep concavities along its edge.
Bipolar flakeda flake with symmetrical patterns of crushing
and/or invasive flake scars on opposite sides of the circumference. (Sometimes called outils écaillées or ‘‘scaled pieces’’; the
retouch on these tools is more likely use-related damage,
possibly arising from the use of the tool as a wedge.)
Other retouched flakedretouched flake not subsumed by the
other categories.
Foliate pointdbifacially flaked artifact with convergent lateral
edges that is less than 10 cm in length. Fragments of foliate
points were differentiated from whole pieces.
Handaxedbifacially flaked artifact with outwardly curving lateral edges and a convergent distal tip that is greater than 10 cm
in length. Further typological notes (following conventions in
Debénath and Dibble (1994) were made among ‘‘comments’’ in
the artifact catalog.
Lanceolate bifacedelongated bifacially flaked artifact with parallel–convergent lateral edges that is less than 10 cm in length.
Debris included flakes or flake fragments smaller than 30 mm in
any dimension. When time allowed (i.e., at KHS and BNS), debris
was cataloged as either ‘‘cortical’’ or ‘‘noncortical.’’
This retouched tool typology originally included contingencies
for burins and truncated flakes, but none of these artifacts were
recovered by our excavations.
Including handaxes among the retouched tools was an arbitrary
decision, as the larger ones certainly could have functioned as cores
(i.e., as sources of useable flakes). Most of the handaxes from the
Kibish Formation are relatively small, thin, and feature straight
lateral edges and shallow flake scars on their surfaces. These
properties suggest that knapping activities associated with them at
the time they were discarded were more directed at shaping and
maintaining the edges of these tools as functional cutting edges
than it was towards large flake production.
The distinctions among foliate points, lanceolates, and handaxes
were also arbitrary. Were this typology to be redesigned, it would
have treated the bifacially retouched artifacts as a single category of
artifacts separately from retouched flakes, and it would have
characterized them in terms of metric criteria such as length and
cross-sectional area.
Measurements of the retouched tools are largely the same as
those made for debitage (i.e., length, width, thickness, platform
width, platform thickness).
The extent of retouch on each tool was measured by placing the
artifact on an eight-point polar-coordinate grid and recording the
number of whole segments of the tool’s circumference that
intersected with retouched edges.
Retouched tools
Hammerstones/pounded pieces
Retouched tools from the Kibish MSA assemblages were
classified in terms of the following numbered types:
Pebbles/cobbles with discrete patches of pitting and crushing of
the sort resulting from hard-hammer percussion were identified as
hammerstones. Hammerstones were classified as either whole or
fragmentary, and their length, width, and thickness were measured
in the same way as for cores. Cores with signs of percussion damage
on them were classified as cores, but a note reporting their visible
damage was made in the ‘‘comments’’ section of the catalog.
Technological lengthdthe distance from the point of percussion
on the flake striking platform to the most distant point on the
distal end of the flake perpendicular to the plane of strikingplatform width.
Midpoint widthdflake width measured perpendicularly to
technological length at the midpoint of technological length.
Midpoint thicknessdthe distance between the dorsal and ventral
surfaces at the midpoint of technological length.
Striking platform Widthdthe distance between the two most
lateral points on the striking platform.
Striking platform thicknessdthe distance between the point of
percussion and the nearest point on the opposite edge of the
striking platform.
Debris/small debitage
Pointdtriangular flake with retouch restricted to its distolateral
edges (e.g., Mousterian point, retouched Levallois point).
Sidescraperdflake with invasive retouch along one lateral edge.
Double scraperdflake with invasive retouch along both lateral
edges and whose edges do not converge to a point at the distal
end of the flake.
Convergent sidescraperdflake with invasive retouch along both
lateral edges and whose edges converge symmetrically to
a point at the distal end of the flake.
Refitting
Numerous refitting constellations were found in the KHS and
BNS assemblages (see Sisk and Shea, 2008). The catalog number
484
and provenience of each artifact in these constellations was
recorded. The component artifacts were drawn/photographed in
both separate and conjoined/refitted positions. Each set of artifacts
was recorded as either comprising refits (artifacts divided by
conchoidal fracture), conjoins (artifacts broken by nonconchoidal
fracture), or a combination of both. Refitting sets were further
classified in terms of the kind of technological operation from
which they represented, as follows:
Core preparationdrefitting sets of cortical flakes with either
cortical or plain striking platforms.
Core exploitationdrefitting sets of partly cortical and/or noncortical flakes with noncortical striking platforms, or either such
flakes refitting to a core.
Core rejuvenation/terminationdflakes whose lateral or distal
edges preserve residual striking platforms and/or ‘‘plunging’’/
overshot flakes that refit to a core.
Refitting sets that combined two of these kinds of technological
operations were classified as resulting from core preparation/
exploitation or core exploitation/rejuvenation. These are, admittedly, somewhat subjectively assessed analytical units, but there is
precedent for their use (Geneste, 1989; Cziesla, 1990).
References
Ambrose, S.H., 2001. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291,
1748–1753.
Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: Origins of early microlithic industries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small:
Global Perspectives on Microlithization. American Anthropological Association,
Washington, pp. 9–30.
Anthony, B.W., 1978. The Prospect Industry: A definition. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Harvard University.
Assefa, Z., 2002. Investigations of faunal remains from Porc-Epic: A Middle Stone
age site in southeastern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Assefa, Z., Yirga, S., Reed, K.E., 2008. Large-mammal fossils from the Kibish
Formation. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 501–512.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31, 363–
393.
Barham, L., 2002. Systematic pigment use in the middle Pleistocene of south-central
Africa. Curr. Anthropol. 43 181–190.
Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification de chaines opératoires
lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paleo 2, 43–80.
Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux.
Brandt, S.A., 1986. The Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn
of Africa. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 4, 41–82.
Brandt, S.A., 2006. Where is everyone? African late Pleistocene refugia and the
origins of modern human behavior. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Bräuer, G., 1992. Africa’s place in the evolution of Homo sapiens. In: Bräuer, G.,
Smith, F.H. (Eds.), Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens
Evolution. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 83–98.
Breuil, H., Teilhard de Chardin, P., Wernert, P., 1951. Le Paléolithique du Harrar.
L’Anthropologie 55, 219–230.
Bruggemann, J.H., Buffler, R.T., Guillaume, M.M.M., Walter, R.C., von Cosel, R.,
Ghebretensae, B.N., Berhe, S.M., 2004. Stratigraphy, palaeoenvironments and
model for the deposition of the Abdur Reef Limestone: context for an important
archaeological site from the last interglacial on the Red Sea coast of Eritrea.
Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 203, 179–206.
Butzer, K.W., Brown, F.H., Thurber, D.L., 1969. Horizontal sediments of the Lower
Omo Valley: The Kibish Formation. Quaternaria 11, 15–29.
Clark, G.A., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2005. Observations on systematics in Paleolithic
archaeology. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition.
Plenum/Kluwer, New York, pp. 29–57.
Clark, J.D., 1954. The Prehistoric Cultures of the Horn of Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clark, J.D., 1984. The cultures of the Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age. In:
Clark, J.D. (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Africa. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 248–341.
Clark, J.D., 1988. The Middle Stone Age of east Africa and the beginnings of regional
identity. J. World Prehist. 2, 235–305.
Clark, J.D., Beyenne, Y., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Renne, P.R., Gilbert, H.,
Defleur, A., Suwa, G., Katoh, S., Ludwig, K.R., Boisserie, J.-R., Asfaw, B., White, T.D.,
2003. Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo
sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423, 747–752.
Clark, J.D., Williamson, K.W., Michels, M.J., Marean, C.A., 1984. A Middle Stone Age
occurrence at Porc Epic Cave, Dire Dawa, Somalia. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 2, 37–71.
Cziesla, E., 1990. On refitting stone artefacts. In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N.,
Winter, D. (Eds.), The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone
Implements. Holos Press, Bonn, pp. 9–44.
Debénath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Vol. 1: Lower and
Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Dibble, H.L., 1997. Platform variability and flake morphology: A comparison of
experimental and archaeological data and implications for interpreting
prehistoric lithic technological strategies. Lithic Technol. 22, 150–170.
Faure, H., Walter, R.C., Grant, D.R., 2002. The coastal oasis: ice age springs on
emerged continental shelves. Global Planet. Change 33, 47–56.
Geneste, J.-M., 1985. Analyse lithique d’industries moustériennes du Périgord:
approche technologique du comportement des groupes humaine au Paléolithique moyen. Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Bordeaux.
Geneste, J.-M., 1989. Les industries de la grotte Vaufrey: téchnologie du débitage,
économie et circulation de la matiére primaire. In: Rigaud, J.-P. (Ed.), La Grotte
Vaufrey a Cenac et Saint-Julien (Dordogne): Paléoenvironnements, Chronologie
et Activites Humaines. Paquez et Fils, Châlons et Marne, pp. 519–528.
Hamilton, A.C., 1982. Environmental History of East Africa: A Study of the
Quaternary. Academic Press, London.
Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W., 2003. The origin of modern human behavior:
Critique of the models and their test implications. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 627–651.
Hours, F., 1976. Le Middle Stone Age de Melka-Kontouré. In: Abebe, B.,
Chavaillon, J., Sutton, J.E.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Pan-African Congress of
Prehistory and Quaternary Studies VIIth Session, 1971. Ministry of Culture,
Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
pp. 99–104.
Hovers, E., Iliani, S., Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 2003. An early case of color
symbolism: Ochre use by modern humans in Qafzeh Cave. Curr. Anthropol. 44,
491–522.
Keeley, L.H., 1982. Hafting and retooling: effects on the archaeological record. Am.
Antiq. 47, 798–809.
Kelly, A., 1996. Intra-regional and inter-regional variability in the East Turkana
(Kenya) and Kenyan Middle Stone Age. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University.
Kelly, A.J., Harris, J.W.K., 1992. Recent findings of Middle Stone Age material from
East Turkana. Nyame Akuma 38, 29–34.
Klein, R.G., 1992. The archaeology of modern human origins. Evol. Anthropol. 1,
5–14.
Klein, R.G., 1999. The Human Career, second ed. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Klein, R.G., 2000. Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior. Evol.
Anthropol. 9, 17–37.
Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Kurashina, H., 1978. An examination of prehistoric lithic technology in east-central
Ethiopia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Lahr, M.M., Foley, R., 1994. Multiple dispersals and modern human origins. Evol.
Anthropol. 3, 48–60.
Leakey, L.S.B., 1943. The industries of the Gorgora Rockshelter, Lake Tana. J. East Afr.
Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc. 17, 199–230.
Leakey, L.S.B., 1954. Adam’s Ancestors. Methuen, London.
Leakey, R.E.F., Butzer, K.W., Day, M.H., 1969. Early Homo sapiens remains from the
Omo River region of south-west Ethiopia. Nature 222, 1132–1138.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964. Le Geste et La Parole. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.
Littmann, T., 1989. Climatic change in Africa during the Last Glacial: Facts and
problems. In: Heine, K. (Ed.), Palaeoecology of Africa and the Surrounding
Islands, vol. 20. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 163–179.
Lombard, M., 2005. A method for identifying Stone Age hunting tools. S. Afr.
Archaeol. Bull. 60, 115–120.
Louchart, A., 2008. Fossil birds of the Kibish Formation. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 513–520.
McBrearty, S., 1981. The Sangoan-Lupemban sequence at the Muguruk site, western
Kenya. World Archaeol. 19, 388–420.
McBrearty, S., 2003. Patterns of technological change at the origin of Homo sapiens.
Before Farming 3, 1–5.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of
the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453–563.
McDougall, I., Brown, F.H., Fleagle, J.G., 2005. Stratigraphic placement and age of
modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature 433, 733–736.
Mehlman, M.J., 1989. Later Quaternary archaeological sequences in northern
Tanzania. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois.
Mellars, P., 2006. Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca.
60,000 years ago? A new model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 9381–9386.
Minichillo, T., 2005. Middle Stone Age lithic study, South Africa: An examination of
modern human origins. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Moysey, F., 1943. Excavation of a Rockshelter at Gorgora, Lake Tana, Ethiopia. J. East
Afr. Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc. 17, 196–198.
Parry, W.A., Kelly, R.L., 1987. Expedient core technology and sedentism. In:
Johnson, J.K., Morrow, C.A. (Eds.), The Organization of Core Technology.
Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 285–304.
Pelcin, A.W., 1997. The formation of flakes: The role of platform thickness and
exterior platform angle in the production of flake initiations and terminations. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 24, 1107–1113.
Pleurdeau, D., 2003. Le Middle Stone Age de la grotte du Porc-Épic (Dire-Dawa,
Éthiopie): gestion des matières premières et comportements techniques.
L’Anthropologie 107, 15–48.
Pleurdeau, D., 2005. Human technical behavior in the African Middle Stone Age: the lithic
assemblage of Porc-Epic Cave (Dire-Dawa, Ethiopia). Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 22, 177–197.
Sandgathe, D.M., 2004. Alternative interpretations of the Levallois reduction technique. Lithic Technol. 29, 147–159.
Shea, J.J., 1997. Middle Paleolithic spear point technology. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.),
Projectile Technology. Plenum, New York, pp. 79–106.
Shea, J.J., Fleagle, J.G., Assefa, Z., 2007. Context and chronology of early Homo sapiensfossils from the Omo Kibish Formation, Ethiopia. In: Mellars, P., BoyleK.
Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. MacDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research Monographs, Cambridge., pp. 153–162.
Shott, M.J., Bradbury, A.P., Carr, P.J., Odell, G.H., 2000. Flake size from platform
attributes: Predictive and empirical approaches. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 877–894.
Sisk, M.L., Shea, J.J., 2008. Intrasite spatial variation of the Omo Kibish Middle
Stone Age assemblages: Artifact refitting and distribution patterns. J. Hum.
Evol. 55, 486–500.
Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., 2006. Changes in the connectedness and resilience of
Paleolithic societies in Mediterranean ecosystems. Hum. Ecol. 34, 693–712.
Stringer, C., 2002. The morphological and behavioural origins of modern humans.
In: Crow, T.J. (Ed.), The Speciation of Homo sapiens. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 23–30.
Tishkoff, S.A., Verrelli, B.C., 2003. Patterns of human genetic diversity: Implications
for human evolutionary history and disease. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet.
4, 293–340.
485
Toth, N.P., 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 12, 101–120.
Wallace, I.J., Shea, J.J., 2006. Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle
Paleolithic of the Levant. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 1293–1309.
Wendorf, F., Laury, R.L., Albritton, C.C., Schild, R., Haynes, C.V., Damon, P.E.,
Shafiqullah, M., Scarbourough, R., 1975. Dates for the Middle Stone Age of East
Africa. Science 187, 740–742.
Wendorf, F., Schild, R., 1974. A Middle Stone Age Sequence from the Central Rift
Valley, Ethiopia. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw.
Wendorf, F., Schild, R., 1993. Probable functions of Mousterian points and convergent
scrapers in the Middle Stone Age of Ethiopia. Quaternaria Nova 3, 39–51.
White, T.D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G., Suwa, G., Howell, F.C.,
2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423,
742–747.
Wreschner, E.E., 1980. Red ochre and human evolution: a case for discussion. Curr.
Anthropol. 21, 631–644.
Yellen, J., Brooks, A., Helgren, D., Tappen, M., Ambrose, S., Bonnefille, R., Feathers, J.,
Goodfriend, G., Ludwig, K., Renne, P., Stewart, K., 2005. The archaeology of the Aduma
Middle Stone Age sites in the Awash Valley, Ethiopia. PaleoAnthropology 10, 25–100.
Zilhão, J., 2006. Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evol. Anthropol. 15,
183–195.

The Middle Stone Age archaeology of the Lower

Transcription

Similar documents

Haymon-Morris Middle School Where caring, patience, and

1_innopas pi/iisc modular tunnel pasteurizer

Maumelle Sports Association

Infants Rap CD New posters!

September 2011 - Kalida Local Schools

Innopas C

Kempner High School - Academy Publishing, Inc.